Just don't lose your edge ATI!

A lot of questions are answered here.

AMD/ATI Merger Interview:

http://www.firingsquad.c..._ati_merger/default.asp

Personally, I'm a little surprised by all these flames running back and forth over this... All this is going to do is provide ATI with fabs, AMD with a dedicated chipset (ATI's chipset) they can call "their own", and even the odds a little more with Intel. It's not like things don't change, people... Who remembers when Nvidia swallowed 3dfx?

Any of you who think integrated graphics solutions can perform equally well as dedicated units are forgetting a pretty important point:

Most Integrated graphics solutions use the same memory that the system does, which is not clocked as low/fast as the onboard DRAM memory of a dedicated graphics card that you would plug into an AGP/PCIe bus (hello? 4 nanosecond chips vs HOW much for DDR???). If you find a system with an integrated video chip and it's own buffer mem on the board that doesn't rely on "agp style" memory access, then you've found a rare thing indeed. Otherwise, you're talking about accessing video memory in the double digits for system ram versus single digits in nanoseconds for the dedicated cards. It doesn't take a math major in college to figure out which is faster.

What this higher power integrated graphics would be a *GREAT* thing for though would be the burgeoning HTPC and mobile computing markets, as well as producing a viable competitor to Intel's UMPC designs with a more powerful chip and video than Intel's. Can someone say: a mobile Athlon64-based UMPC with ATI video and possibly *DUAL CORE* technology?

Anyone who's been around for a while should remember Intel's attempts at producing viable multimedia/gaming capable Graphics has been constantly surpassed by many companies. Intel isn't in the graphics business, folks. Trust me, they're not wanting to take over Nvidia or ATI's business. The only notable examples of "acceptable" graphics cards from Intel that pop out to me as a real attempt by them were the cards that came out around the i840 range. For a short while, they did produce a value alternative that did play the some games of the time fairly well, not necessarily as well as an ATI or Nvidia card, but they did it in a pinch. Intel's graphics for their chipsets are more meant for the business workstations, with today's demands for internet delivered media, they had to produce something or lose business.

I just hope the merger does take away from ATI's power in the graphics industry. Like it or not they also tend to make the best and fastest video cards. I just worry they will lay off the wrong people or make changes that will hurt ATI and thus the consumer.

I'm still trying to wrap my mind around how some of you think AMD is going to keep ATI video cards from working on any systems but their own. Maybe I'm just blind and missing something here.

The could make the GPU look at what kind of CPU is in the computer. I highly doubt that though.

For everyone that is saying AMD is going to do this or that with their motherboards, it should be pointed out that AMD is not going to make motherboards.

http://www.crn.com/secti...JVN?articleId=191000614

IMO, all this means is that all amd boards with onboard video will now come with only ati video chips onboard, much like all intel boards weith onboard video have intel video (and by this I mean amd branded and marketed boards, not gigabyte, asus etc and the same for intel)
It makes sense to use the in-house crand video if you can to cut costs.

Personally I think this will be a good thing for AMD. They now have their very own chipset (although I preferred nforce) and graphics chip which they can use as an integrated solution. Not to mention the great Radeon line of video cards. :)

It should be good for consumers also as we may be seeing cheaper prices on Radeon cards and hopefully better driver support, particularly for Linux. That in turn would mean NVIDIA would have to lower their prices to compete, and work on improving their card's quality further.

Goodbye, AMD. even dumber mistake than allying with Dell.

I'm not sure why you say that. AMD is doing quite well in the CPU market, and ATI has been doing fine in the video card market. How is a merger going to kill AMD? Also why was allying with one of the leading PC manufacturers a mistake?

AMD was not doing very well in the general CPU market at all. There were small gains in some sectors, but they still have a very small portion of the market.

It's been quoted by a few Wall St. types, that buying ATI was crucial to AMD's survival.

Everyone seems to think that Nvidia loses out...

Y??!!

Its actually GREAT news for them as they become the sole provider of high end 3rd party cards for BOTH AMD and Intel.

AMD will now lock Intel out of using ATI cards, just as Intel does not allow AMD to use their chipsets.

So if Nvidia jumps on this just right, and improves their line while AMD/ATI is going through their merger, they can capitalize on this and make HUGE profits. Also in the future they can benefit from any other device requiring video processing, not just PCs. If it uses and Intel chip, or AMD chip, the only alternatie to a 1st party chipset /gpu, will b Nvidia.

Time to buy some Nvidia stock...

Latz, SB

"AMD will now lock Intel out of using ATI cards"

No, they won't. That would be crazy.

"just as Intel does not allow AMD to use their chipsets."

Chipsets are entirely a different matter. Why would Intel build chipsets for AMD?

They will own ATI, and why would it be crazy? Beacause u said so?

It makes sense to not let your rivals use your stuff to benefit from it.

this is the very reason for mergers and acquisitions. To get something so that you have it, and others cant get it.

Intel wouldnt build chipsets, or anything for AMD, and AMD is not likely to build things for Intel...you think?

Latz, SB

AMD is going to want to sell video cards don't you think, and a lot of people are not going to buy them if they can only use the cards in AMD motherboards. What do you think they're going to do, move to some proprietary video card slot that only accepts ATI cards? That's completely ridiculous.

Of course Intel isn't going to build chipsets for AMD, or vice versa. What does that have to do with video cards? Nothing. Chipsets are part of the motherboard itself so obviously AMD and Intel are not going to make chipsets for their competition any more than they would make CPUs for their competitor's sockets.

And AMD will not make video cards for the competitor either. Dont need to make a new slot, just drivers :).

Silly Billy...stop messin' round.

AMD is ATI and ATI is AMD. And intel can legally stop AMD from making ATI video cards for their systems, just as AMD can legally stop Intel from using ATI cards ( all of this is future sales...not current systems ). Is it that hard to believe that a company that is in direct competition with another company ( such as ATI will be ) , will stop producing products for that company?

Or perhaps your thinking is..."if AMD sells its products so that Intel can use them, AMD will benefit by helping Intel."

Hmmm...

Latz, SB

"And AMD will not make video cards for the competitor either. Dont need to make a new slot, just drivers :)"

As I said before, that is ridiculous. Why would they want to stop people from buying their video cards? Are they going to stop ASUS, Abit, MSI, Gigabyte and all the other motherboard manufacturers from using their video cards too?

The drivers are written for Windows to use the video card, they have nothing to do with who makes the motherboard. Your whole argument is beyond stupid.

AMD Exec #1: I have a great idea. Let's tell all the people who own Intel motherboards, a huge chunk of the market, that they are not allowed to use our video cards!

AMD Exec #2: Brilliant! We'll make a fortune!

Please. I hope you aren't really that ignorant.

Actually they can be made to not run on certain configurations...

It will not stop manufacturers from making motherboards. They already make boards for BOTH Intel AND AMD, y would they stop because AMD merged wit ATI?. And did i say that they would stop writting drivers for Windows? Rest assured that not ALL drivers are made to be compatible.

Latz, SB

BN Poster ( Me ) : Just charge intel licensing fees...

Latz, SB

Intel isn't the one buying the video cards, the customer is. You seem to be under the deluded impression that we're talking about integrated chips. We're talking about standalone video cards you plug into a slot, you can't charge licensing fees for an expansion card. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to add ANYTHING to your PC if it was a different brand. Video cards have nothing to do with the motherboard! Anyway it is not going to happen so just drop it. AMD isn't as stupid as you seem to be.

AMD is not going to cripple their video cards to only run on AMD motherboards, period. End of story. They may as well close up and go out of business if they did something that stupid. You have no idea what you are talking about. In fact I'm starting to think I've been wasting time talking to a troll. You would have to be trolling, no one is that ignorant. Oh, and give the idiotic "Latz" thing a rest.

Youve got 2 b kidding me...

Give me a couple minutes 2 eat my lunch and i will post again so that u may b educated.

Itll take abit, since ur comments r hard 2 stomach, since u r GROSSly mistaken :).

Latz, SB

"Actually they can be made to not run on certain configurations..."

I'm still waiting for you to explain to me why AMD would want to lose customers. Are you really trying to say that if you plug a future Radeon video card into the PCI Express slot on your ASUS motherboard with an Intel chipset it will not work? They can not tie standalone video cards to only work on AMD motherboards. They would not only lose tons of money, I'm sure they'd promptly find themselves in legal trouble to boot. Stop being such a blind nvidia fanboy and try using your brain.

"It will not stop manufacturers from making motherboards."

That's not what I said genius. I said if they refuse to allow their cards to work on Intel motherboards they'd have to refuse to allow them to work on VIA, ALi and others. That's not going to happen for a number of reasons that I have already pointed out.

"Its actually GREAT news for them as they become the sole provider of high end 3rd party cards for BOTH AMD and Intel."

That's the biggest load of horse manure I've read all week. What fanboys a** did you pull that out of? AMD is not going to stop making video cards for other platforms. You will still be able to go out and buy a Radeon card and use it in any system you want. Go troll somewhere else fanboy.

Pretty strong words from someone who doesn't even know how to write.

i hope u enjoy ur lnch cause u sure dont have ne thing better 2 do.

AMD Exec 1 : "He, why don't we make only GPU that can work solely on AMD platform"

AMD Exec 2 : "Well, we would lose 3/4 of the market, millions of $, the business unit would close, I would be fired, I wouls lose my jouse, my wife and my dog and then I would end up selling my kydneys to Intel Exec tu survive"

AMD Exec 1 : "Latz"

LOL :)

1st i correct ur blabber.

I never said Intel was buying the video cards.

I think we are talking ALL things made by AMD/ATI, not just chipsets, or video cards, or hardware architecture.

I never said that they need to charge for add in cards, just for the use of the technology.

Video cards have quite abit to do with motherboards, as i can still not plug my PCI card into my AGP slot OR my PCI-E slot...not to mention not all cards are compatible with all motherboards ( driver , bios issues ).

And let me correct my meaning so that you can correct yourself. This may happen, or it may not, however since AMD isnt in business to be buddies with Intel, it seems morelikely it will not happen. Keep in mind they are trying to take away market share, not remain at the same levels as they are now.

Now for me to educate.

A rundown : AMD makes proprietary processors. Intel does same. ATI also does same. Ditto Nvidia.

AMD merges with ATI, and combined company makes proprietary processors.

All the proprietary processors bring along with them different technologies, which are not compatible. You can not run one processor in anothers hardware architect ( ATI cant do SLI, Nvidia cant do Crossfire, AMD cant fit in Intel socket, vice versa ).

AMDs new proprietary processors and architecture around it are now intergrated with ATI, and continue to not be compatible with Intel.

AMD and Intel have a couple of choices at this point.

AMD can make its own hardware architecture compatible with the Intel one, or it can let Intel make its own architecture compatible with AMD hardware.

Or one or both of them refuse to make compatible products.

Or AMD for want of being "nice and simple", leaves the ATI division alone and lets it develop video cards as it has now ( for any companies processor architecture ), and only acquires it to make 1st party chipsets.

In any case, AMD can legally charge for the use of its technologies, or simply bar anyone it wants to from using them as they see fit, for they own them ( patents ).

Also on the flip side of the coin, Intel can stop support for any future AMD/ATI products, simply by not allowing AMD/ATI to run on their hardware architecture ( no BIOS support for AMD/ATI video cards perhaps? ... could even introduce a new socket, much like they did the PCI-E ).

Or Intel can continue to support its competitors products, either by letting AMD/ATI ( legally ) do R&D and make the products compatible with Intels, or by using their own R&D to develop products that can be compatible wit AMDs.

If the two companies were not so much in direct competition, and were it not for the fact that it would benefit each to stiffle the others growth and market share if only because of limitations of choices ( this is y Nvidia is the winner in this ), they would work together to make sure their technological paths could allow some of their products to coexist. This however seems unlikely.

It may seem stupid to stop Intel from using ATI products ( soon to b AMD ), but again, AMD is in it to gain market share, not to simply remain in second place.

What AMD will do with ATIs graphic cards is just to be determined, as i said, they could just leave that part of ATI alone, so as to not lose revenue, and just make the chipset section proprietary.

The main thing to focus on is the want of AMD to gain market share, and to try and stiffle Intel's growth.

If it still seems unlikely to you that AMD does NOT want to help sustain Intels market share, and that the only reason for the merger is to have in-house chipsets, then i believe you are gravely mistaken.

AMD will do whatever it takes to win this battle, and what may seem like a stupid moe, might turn out to b a brilliant one, or not. But AMD must do something to continue to eat away at Intels market share, and I dont think they believe that simply by making their own chipsets, and possibly introducing a "tri-core" ( dual core + gpu ) is gonna be the only ways to do it.

And just consider the outcome...all games could b played "the way its meant to b played" ;).

Latz, SB

I spelled it "lunch".

Latz, SB

What a load of crap, Intel doesn't care if AMD let's their cards work with Intel systems or not. In fact Intel would love it, AMD would be losing millions in sales and it would give Intel's own graphics chips a boost.

Latz is not a word either.

Its ok not to have forward thinking. ( meaning AMD isnt going to take this route today...DUH! )

I dont call you an names cause of it though...

And once again, I never claimed that which you state...

**SIGHS**

Latz, SB

Never a claim of mine, thank you for the clarification!

/me salutes Cpt. Obvious

Latz, SB

True, that comment was out of line and I apologize. You are still completely and hilariously wrong though.

You claimed that nvidia now has this great big advantage because they'll be the sole provider of 3rd party graphics cards, which is total and utter nonsense. AMD is not going to take this route period. If they were to do what you say they would lose a fortune and be out of the graphics card business.

Just pointing out that typing Latz at the end of every post is dumb, and annoying.

Quite possibly the point ;)~

Latz, SB

"as i can still not plug my PCI card into my AGP slot OR my PCI-E slot..."

lol,
those are industry standards, not propietary formats.

"not to mention not all cards are compatible with all motherboards "

what kind of cards are you talking about?
playing cards?

"AMD makes proprietary processors."

AMD has a patented meathod of performing x86 instructions, which is NOT propietary. again, industry standard.

"All the proprietary processors bring along with them different technologies, which are not compatible."

are you talking about a whole new computer architecture?

you seem to be hitting WAY out in left field, better stick to reality for now.

"intel can legally stop AMD from making ATI video cards for their systems"

what are these intel "systems" you speak of?

"The whole company, well the new company wants to give as much choice to its customers as possible, so if you want an Intel CPU with an ATI GPU then great, we’ll be happy with that. If you want an AMD CPU with an NVIDIA GPU then we’ll be very happy with that as well. Basically we want them all to compete equally and make sure that we give the best product to our customers."

http://www.firingsquad.c..._ati_merger/default.asp

This argument is now officially over, and like everyone said, you were WRONG. Latz.

"So really the onus is on Intel to show that they want to provide choice to their customers as well. If they want to allow a choice, then we’ll certainly continue to serve that market."

Intel themselves can decide theoutcome of this also.

We have yet to see if ATI / Intel will remain an option to consumers.

Your counting chicks before they hatch...bad habituals!

Latz, SB

"Intel insiders have confirmed to DailyTech that the license for ATI to manufacture chipsets for the Intel bus has not been revoked."

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3494

Are you through yet?

" It's not impossible to fathom that Intel would opt to not renew the ATI cross-license agreement, but at this time the agreement is still working and will continue to function until an announcement is made by Intel and ATI."

Not til the fat lady ( Intel ) sings. Like i said, this isnt going to happen today...the merger itself hasnt even occured yet.

Its stupid to think that in 1 day, on a yet to be completed merger, Intel will cut off one of its partners.

Wait until the merger goes through, and the lawyers are done playing.

Then if both these speculations hold true, my speculations will be proven false.

Latz, SB

It's not impossible to fathom that Bill Gates will come to my house and give me a million dollars but that isn't going to happen either. You're now down to desperately clawing at meaningless speculation. Nvidia is not going to be the sole provider of third party video cards, Intel is not cancelling ATI's chipset license, you've been proven wrong in every single case and still you insist on making an a** of yourself. Well I'm tired of talking to you. You can lead a fool to water but you can't make him think. Latz TROLL.

So you admit you are just being an annoying, trolling jackass.

which might just put you up in line to be a troll, therefor you lose all credibility, and we all find it hard to take anything you say seriously.

he seems to think IEEE standards are intel's and that suddenly intel is going to keep amd from using open standards, sort of like the us is gonna make n korea stop making nukes....

Trust me...i can make u think!

Latz, SB

Are you still babbling? STFU you stupid troll.

On ATI's Intel License: There is no truth to the rumor that Intel has pulled ATI's chipset license. We continue to ship Intel chipsets under license.

On AMD's commitment to GPUs: The merger with AMD reinforces ATI's position as the world's best GPU supplier. AMD is absolutely committed to maintaining and extending that leadership. The merger gives access to AMD technologies and resources - for example, custom memory design - which will raise performance and reduce costs, further increasing ATI's competitiveness. Also, AMD has been extraordinarily effective in the channel, and access to their know-how, experience, and network, will be a powerful plus for ATI.

On Intel platforms: AMD acquired ATI so it could be the world's number one graphics processor supplier. AMD is absolutely committed to supporting graphics on Intel platforms. Hector Ruiz, AMD's CEO, made this completely clear on the conference call that announced the merger. He stated that AMD wanted to increase choice in the market, and that included ATI graphics on an Intel platform.

On the gift to Nvidia: Nvidia has seen the writing on the wall, and doesn't like what it's saying. The PC market is a tough place to be without any friends. ATI now has all the resources of AMD behind it, and will be producing faster, more compact GPUs and reaching the channel more effectively than ever before. Nvidia's words are bravado, designed to confuse the market while the company tries to find a way to compete now that it's standing alone.

http://dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3524

I get the feeling from some comments that AMD sytems will perform better with ATI video cards rather than Nvidia. Does any else feel that this would be a bad idea for AMD? Why not support both major video card manufacturers to the fullest extent?

If per say AMD does decide to make ATI cards work better with their CPU and not support Nvidia as much, what happens? Intel could then provide equal support for both ATI & Nvidia and profit because they are supporting both brands.

Or does this seem off? I'm not quite sure I would put all my eggs in one basket per say. I can say that many high end gamers work with AMD/Nvidia rigs, because they feel that is the best performance. However, I myself recently went to ATI......

any thoughts?

I really don't believe they will try and cripple competitor's cards on their motherboards, this simply gives them the opportunity to have their own chipset like Intel does. AMD has great processors but they have had to rely on third party chipsets that haven't been so great. They also get their own integrated video solution but I'm sure they're not going to lock out NVIDIA or others. It would be suicide.

I'm still not sure what to think of this. I want AMD AND nvidia gpu, and now it seems that will disappear. Well...AMD, you may have just lost one customer--and the timing is atrotious. Now, my new rig will have to be AMD and ATI, or Intel and nvidia. Sadley, I'm going to have to go for Conroe and nvidia.

where did you come up with conclusion that there will be no nvidia gpu for amd? If it is true, the first thing will happen is nvidia will sue, BUT, nvidia is a canadian company, donno if they can sue in the US.

I think AMD make a good move any, intel has it's own gfx line on their own board. It's a low budget high profit model, and by bundling low end gfx card into the mobo and yield high margin.

NVIDIA is american, ATI is canadian.
Of course a Canadian corporation can sue an american one. Globalisation and all these sorts of things ...

ATI is not Canadian any more, the combined company will operate under the name AMD and it will be headquartered in Sunnyvale California.

", BUT, nvidia is a canadian company, donno if they can sue in the US."

Of course they can--how did the EU "sue" (or litigate) Microsoft in Europe? Same type of thing can happen in this case.

Funny, I can remember a time when STB and Matrox were the big boys on the block! Don't count out another new competitor or so to come along and fill any gap this merger might cause.

Interesting you brought that up, because PowerVR is preparing to reenter the desktop graphics market.

http://www.theinquirer.n...ault.aspx?article=33240

However, I don't believe there will be a gap. AMD will continue selling Radeon cards (if not under a new name) and they will continue to compete with the GeForce line. I would like to see some more players though, the more competition the better. :)

Intel is trying to cut everyone else out of the market by integrating "mini-core" GPUs right into their 1010 32core CPU. It would potentially provide ~128 times the processing power for graphics that we have today.

This merger is strictly so that AMD can develop a countermeasure. ATI/nVidia cards and chipsets will still be produced for the masses in the meantime, although ATI stuff may be under a new name. ATI will also have access to better fabs now.

I'm not sur i get your point.
xyzcb1 was mixed up with whom of ATI and NVIDIA is canadian.

As for ATI, it is Canadian today.
And if the merger goes on, in a few month there will be no more ATI as a corporation.

It won't, nothing is going to change there. You can still buy any video card you want for any motherboard you want.

The merge of my Processor and my GPU. What a marriage! xD

can you imagine the conflict that may arise with this deal and Microsoft..

AMD/ATI - We own next gen consoles!!!!

MICROSOFT - ummm ummm.. we use ATI in the XBOX360, I hope they won't demand we switch to a AMD CPU over the IBM one...

AMD/ATI - Hey Microsoft, we want you to do a processor change on the XBOX360...

MICROSOFT - F U!!! Were going with Nvidia.

Hahaha, are you kidding me mate?

ATI would plead Microsoft to keep using them as their Graphics Chip maker.

Man AMD/ATI would not even think for a second about asking MS to change over because if MS would say goodbye they would probably lose a few hundred million (maybe even billions) in profits they get from the Xbox 360

According to the revenue statements of Nvidia and ATI, XBOX business brings in a lot of revenue, but notsomuch profit.

Microsoft's not going with nvidia. Not after the lawsuit over the first Xbox. If they do turn to nvidia, expect nvidia to demand huge sums of money. And Microsoft will pay. They'll have to.

an on chip gpu would be cool but that would mean you would have to get a cpu evertime you wish to upgrade graphics. It would be cool if the onchip gpu could be scalalbe with whatever graphics card you want to add to the system (loosely like sli/crossfire). The key is being able to add horsepower regardless of who made it or the technology involved

AMD, please add the WIMAX support to your next chip. and it will become good selling point.

Hello All, please suggest AMD to include the WIMAX, and the war will become hotter :)

No.

Latz, SB

How about Intel Buy Nvidia ?
The war will start burning

Intel has already core logic, IGP, a killing brand and the better relationship with OEM you can have (well that doesn't mean that they like Intel, but they all buy Intel).
They have the ressources to build a discrete GPU (whether it's good or bad they will sell it).
So I don't see them crack a few millions bucks just to have a multi GPU solution.

I think this is a very promising merger, not in the short term but in the longer term. Obviously Amd needed its own chipsets and relying on third party to make them was getting to be a problem for them no doubt not to mention letting these other companies profit from it. I hope they come up with some good products together and it makes their platform cheaper and more competitive.

This does put a lot of pressure on Nvidia to do something now, I read their ceo said something about how it helps them because they are the only high end graphics chip maker left. Do they think ATi is just going away, its more like Ati is strengthening their position. I mean I seriously doubt this is anything like throwing in the towel as he put it. It's more like making two separate companies with weaknesses and missing something to a more versatile and full service company like Intel.

The difference is, everything about these two companies is about good performance and feature rich. Intel may have the majority of the graphics industry but it sucks. I mean who cares if you have a corporate desktop with high end graphics. But I certainly wouldn't mind having a desktop processor with a built in high end graphics engine. No bottleneck there, not to mention space saving.

So yeah I think Intel and nvidia will possibly cook something up soon, however it wouldn't make sense for a buyout, Intel is already too big with too many employees they waste a lot of money and have thousands of management layers, literally. So buying Nvidia would not go over well. They have all the capacity in the world so no need for that, they obvoiusly see no need to better their 3d performance in their Intel graphics chipsets or else they would do it themselves. Amd meanwhile has no graphics products.

Nvidia will most likely loose the chipset business with Amd and Amd will come out with its own chipsets and leave via/sis/ali out in the cold. But who knows what will happen.

This is exciting to see I didn't believe the rumours before but it looks like it turned out. I can't wait to see what kind of products they come up with. Hopefully all the added debt and stock dives were worth it. Amd isn't exactly in a wonderful position as Intel is. But at least the competition will continue for years to come, hopefully.

"Do they think ATi is just going away, its more like Ati is strengthening their position."

Really? Okay, so why did Intel just cancel their integrated graphics supply contract with AMD?

Nvidia is right: this is huge for them. They get to pick up ATi's chunk of the integrated graphics market on Intel motherboards. And despite recent troubles, Intel STILL dominates sales. Nvidia is primed to make a lot--A LOT--of money over the next few years as a result of not only this, but their PS3 contract.

Now is a very good time to buy nvidia stock.

This totally sucks.

They are both good companies but ATI has always had issues with driver installs and tons of other goofy stuff.

AMD has now become just like Intel. A big annoying corporate stiff.

ATI's drivers have not had problems for years now, I believe overall they are considered to be quite mature. At least for Windows, their Linux support leaves quite a bit to be desired. However with AMD running things I would expect their support to improve even more. As for AMD being just like Intel, a big corporation, what is the problem and how are they annoying you?

Oh, please. As if AMD was ever anything but a corporation out to make money.

AMD has no clue!
AMD has the worst reputation in the world!
IT techs like myself use Intel because Intel is
more reliable and way less buggy!
I always tell people to stay away from AMD!

I sure hope your not trying to speak for all techs, I mean A+ certification doesn't exactly make you an expert you know. I am sure Dell would love to put you on their assembly line floor making 10 dollars an hour putting computers together, using color coding. Cause you know thats really tough work, not to mention mind numbing.

I'm sorry are you still working with k6/2's? I have been using and supporting Athlon 64 systems for years now, I have had no problems myself and any issues with customers have been documented on BOTH Intel and AMD platforms and usually it has nothing to with the processor or platform its based on. But are usually motherboard, ram, graphics or power supply's being defective.

I guess if it was up to you it would still be 1996 today, processors would cost thousands of dollars, systems would not be capable of being home built and we would still be using a 120 MHz Intel Pentium 1. The 1 ghz processor would not have been invented yet and computers would only be in 5 percent of households . Amd has made the computer/processor industry what it is today and that is faster, cheaper, more powerful and with more features then ever before in the history of pc computing. Since the Athlon 64 has been released we have never seen such an increase in performance and decrease in prices not to mention innovation. Do you think Intel would be releasing the Core 2 duo processor line right now if Amd wasn't doing so well, I think not as it would never of been invented nore would they have needed to even fathom the idea.

Same thing with graphics processors from both, ATI and Nvidia. Gaming is much more capable now thanks to the cpu, as well as video editing music and even supercomputers capabilities. All thanks to Amd giving Intel something to compete with.

So go crawl back into bed with Intel cyberdoc, I guess you must have Intel stock cause you obviously don't know the benefit of competition or what the heck your talking about.

AMD processors have not had any problems for many years now, I'm not sure where you are getting that drivel from. While I do prefer Intel chipsets, AMD has had better processors for years. The Pentium 4 line was a big disappointment and only now is Intel really getting back into the game. I'm sure you do tell people to stay away from them, that is generally what fanboys do. I always tell people to ignore fanboys and use whichever product suits their needs best at the time they need it, whether it's from Intel, AMD, VIA, etc.

AMD bad reputation??! ah come on, what are you talking about dude! I've been using AMD processors for the past 10 years and they're just fine, gimme a break. Let's not start this little battle again now shall we?! AMD or Intel is all good.

I drink to that! ;-)

Clearly you haven't been an IT tech for years, or if you are currently one, then you're also a moron. It's numbnuts like you that recommend people support incumbent ISPs too, even though you pay twice as much for a lesser service.

AMD arguably has one of the best reputations, when you talk to people who KNOW. PC enthusiasts have long been AMD fans for cheap, reliable and often highly overclockable processors. They know how to spend money wisely. :P

Here here!

Except long before that Intel has had competition on other fronts...

It was not beacause of any 1 company that any sector of technology ( even OS with MS ) is where it is today.

Sorry to burts your colective bubbles ( fanboys ).

/me pulls out pin and starts poppin'

Latz, SB

Go away Troll

overclocking and reliability in the same sentence. Did you keep a straight face while typing that?

How about 2.85GHz from a 4000+ Clawhammer for the last year + ??? (on AIR!)
I know what he's talking about...
...Or maybe I've just ALWAYS had good luck overclocking AMD processors and finding reliability in them...coincidence?

This ATI/AMD merger will benefit everyone who wasn't EXPECTING to Crossfire a Conroe.

actually the driving force behind the majority of things technology, except maybe graphics and recently home computers, has and always will be the military. i mean they were the first ones to make computers to begin with anyway.

sounds like we are going towards an oligopoly (more and more concentrated)

and who knows the percentage of the participation of intel's microprocessors in the world? around 5%
(microprocessors are included from your cell phone to almost any electrical gadget)

Wow, I'm speechless...

My projections:

1) AMD now has complete control over its chipsets as intel does - but also has the smarts to build better ones

2) AMD can now integrate high resolution graphis into chips - this will put a sizeable dent in nVidia's business over the long term

3) nVidia's status as a chip maker is now in jeopardy since both majors now can "roll their own"

4) The ATI chipset line is a solid performer, on par with nVidia's except in the area of the peripheral bus. It will now benefit from the type of integrated insider design knowledge that only an integral part of a chip maker can provide. This will mean ever more powerful chipsets and performance for AMD processors (which already have a superior memory controllers and system bus compared to intel offerings).

5) The final chink in AMD's armor is closed - tremble intel, tremble. You've been building less than optimal chipsets for the last five years and the honeymoon is now officially over (remember, Conroe is hampered by a poor memory controller and system bus courtesy of your ill-designed chipsets).

6) ATI graphics will now work extremely well with AMD processors, in the same way that nVidia's graphics cards worked well with its chipsets. See item 4) for why. There's a rough road ahead for nVidia.

All in all, this seriously shakes up the industry. nVidia is likely to sustain the most damage - and lots of it. They are now in serious trouble.

AMD is not immune here. They still have the issue of production and ATI has no fabs. While they can continue to use IBM as a stopgap, it's not a very cost effective solution in the long term. They'll have to build their own - and even as we speak, one is being built right now.

arguement sounds a bit biased towards AMD.

With the Intel Core 2 Duo, it's intel's world all over again. Intel has nothing to fear.

can I post links? If not edit out :)

Check out the last page of this report from pcmag, it just rounds up the study between the chips and views AMDs future offings.

http://www.pcmag.com/art...2/0,1895,1989027,00.asp

2) AMD can now integrate high resolution graphis into chips - this will put a sizeable dent in nVidia's business over the long term

How so? Integrated chipsets only appeal to business and low-end markets as the enthusiasts and gamers like to be able to upgrade.

3) nVidia's status as a chip maker is now in jeopardy since both majors now can "roll their own"

nVida has plenty of time to deal with this. AMD isn't coming out with a new chipset tomorrow, and nVida has *never* had to worry about Intel. Competition is a good thing. rest assured nVidia will not simply sit there and rest.

4) The ATI chipset line is a solid performer,

Due to it's open licensing agreements with Intel...which have now been closed. Tehy will be able to finish the one chipset they are working on and that will be it. They will be forced to drop the current process and start over. Sure, AMD will be able to help with that significantly, but there will be a good amount of lag-time.

I believe this is all going to be good in the end, but I don't see doom for nVidia as you do. I also don't see the AMD/ATi combination taking off as quickly as you seem to think they will.

if i may interupt here, we seem to have the wrong idea for the reason of the merger. it wasnt to be able to use the graphics chipsets on integrated boards, it is to start a primary cpu/ secondary cpu architecture. considering that ati's chips are incredibly powerful and if given a proper heatsink can perform wonders. the idea was to offload some tasks and load to a ati proccessor mounted next to the motherboard to improve overall speed. ati makes microproccessors that can be used for many things not just graphics. amd was just thinking out of the box, and it has the potential to rival or outperform dual cpu boxes.

The heat issue is moot, since they can easily resolve this a number of ways, just as they are already currently doing. The combination of both also could b used to enhance gaming / computing as the speed of both the CPU / GPU, ( or as i will call the combined processor DUP ( Dual Use Processor, since it no longer just crunches numbers to process data or numbers to process video / graphics, but both ) since they will share everything at the same speeds with no need for any bridges between them. Much like cache works faster on the same chip than in RAM, and just like the command extensions improve the performance of the chip ( SSE , MMX ), these chips will share all of that. BAsically it seems tome that they can just do AMD now w/ ATI technology ( reminiscent of AMD now w/ MMX Techonology ), and the heat issue will not be so much the problem as they engineer a design that shares more of the same transistors and do away with the redundancy that they have between having two seperate chips sharing a process. As for the underdog / top dog thing, this merger is more for cost savings than it is for technological advancement. AMD will retain an ATI division ( they will have their own R&D , advertising, etc ), but they will share production costs, shipping costs, purchasing leverage, advertising casts / revenue, employees, etc. A cost savings of $75 million is close to 1.5% of the total merger. In such a business where the prices are the main sale point ( most bang for the buck ), it is getting cut-throat and they are trying to save money in as many ways as they can, and a merger will improve the company on every front if done appropriately. Lets not look so far as to think that the companies are doing this for our benefit. They are here foremost to make money, and they make it from us, so they are trying to create something that will make them more money, again, from us. Let us just hope that we get something slightly more worth our hard earned cash than we presently do ( to play all the latest games "the way its meant to be played" ) since you need to shell out increasingly more and more, for marginal benefits, to play a continiously decreasing amount of play-worthy games, with the only increase one seems to be getting is in the form of a higher power bill. Im crossing my fingers, but only for a moment, and im definitely not holding my breath, for any major news to come out of this. This reeks to me as the hardware equivalent of the SUN / Google deal that was struck not long ago. The potential is there, as it is in many mega-mergers, lets just hope the money hungry people at top arent just promising big and delivering small...

Latz, SB

Ever heard of paragraphs?

Formatting?

God, that's hard to read.

Take a quick glance at CPU/GPU transistor counts over the past decade. There's no way in hell sharing or lowering the amount of transistors is going to improve performance. The exact opposite would be true.

Again, as stated below, I don't see anything here changing due to this other than additional options for low-end systems and appliances.

What you are suggesting (ignoring the technical details and misinformation) would no longer qualify as a PC. It would be a console at that point. Powerful as hell at first, perhaps, but outdated and non-upgradeable after only a few short months.

Yes.

Yes.

Ok.

Im not suggesting a reduction in transistors really, just a reduction of the combined transistors, for efficiency. ( Intel has already shown improved performance with a reduction of transistors from Pentium D to Core Duo ... reason being increased efficiency ) Also sharing a set of instructions like SSE ( or something new ) , and bus speeds directly with the GPU would make it faster than the alternative.

As for improving systems, what loss is it on a system to have more processing power? Thats y they now have dual core chips, this is just more processing power...so how can it not benefit anyone looking to gain more proccesing power?

And they are not in the business of building PCs. They build processor chips, and dont really care where they are used ( consoles, laptops, servers, handhelds, perconal computers even ) Perhaps they are going to keep sticking with that model...

Besides even on the OG xbox one could upgrade the cpu...

Latz, SB

Wall Street went nuts over this deal today. Look for more major mergers in the coming weeks. Ugh.

Graphics instruction sets evolve too fast to integrate them into the Motherboard or CPU. I think this would be a step backwards at least until we hit the next major step in increasing processor speeds.

In the past they have, but they seem to be slowing down now. How long has it been since the last major revision of DirectX was released? And usually, if your graphics card doesn't support the new instructions, those tasks are handled by the CPU anyways.

Anyone else surprised that it was ATI and not nVidia? I thought nVidia and AMD were buds. Maybe I'm completely off-base, though.

I was thinking the same thing. nVidia has always had the best chipsets for AMD. (Ok, ok, not always, but lately:P)

I agree, I was sure that Nvida would merge with AMD, not ATI. But oh well, I guess ATI has a stronger showing overall, or something...

*shrugs* Who knows?

Very clever move. Anyone who knows the trends in processor making knows that the near future will be dominated by various microcore architectures. SUN already makes such microcores (engineering samples). Imagine multicore CPUs & GPUs using single sockets and exchanging memory & data processing.
Bad news for Intel. Good news for 2008 customers.

The two underdogs get together. I rooted for both since the mid-90s despite their quirks. But like Universal laws, what comes up must come down.

Watch Intel wake up one day and nVidea do joint ventures with them.

p.s. Yeah, ATI's drivers were poor but those All In Wonder were terific.

I don't like this idea...only because the combined company can either hit a wall and be an evolutionary one shot...or innovate and really drive the industry and take over.

I believe a combined cpu/gpu can be made to be better than separate parts...but only if it's done right.

technology like this should have actually been done at the start, but "business" choices made it as it is today. Perhaps they actually can.

AMD I believe ran out of ideas...but ATI could have gone on. Possible...

so you suppose that AMD said "we've run out of ideas, let's f*ck*ng buy ATI tomorrow for 5.400 millions".
what the hell are you talking about dude?
such massive investments are made only after a lot of analisis, so please...

what's with the anger, sheesh! lol
It's technical ideas. Intel is by far still much larger. Winning over certain market shares and gaining is one thing, but "I" believe AMD has taxed the ideas of it's current crop of engineers. I don't believe intel has to worry about that. And of course we could throw in technical patents, which I'm sure Intel holds a massive amount over AMD.

I stress "I" because it still is open, but only if companies tread carefully. I hope you remember the Voodoo chipsets? The company behind it? They gained market share, then hit a wall and tried to buy other techs...then their rivals caught up and passed them, because I think they just made a mistake.

ANALYSIS can be "correct" it's many times the execution that can falter.

Purchasing ATI is a wise choice. If AMD realizes it has nothing else to combat Intel's Core 2 Duo and it's vast aces in the future, giving up on the CPU market and going with ATI's tried GPU technology is no loss. If it's what they intend to do. The Core 2 Duo is amazing. There's also the spectral Intel chip out there that can be over cranked to 4ghz successfully.

You SEEM young. I hope you're at least paying attention to "chip politics". One company makes what seems like a good deal with another...than gets "betrayed" down the road.

And of course, how deep the pockets matter as well. The deeper your pockets, the more mistakes you can make. A few companies can do this. Intel is one, Sony another.

I'll use this as an example...Nintendo. I'm sure they're big, but I'm not too sure they are big enough to make a loser out of Wii...but damn if I am unsure on their decision not to support HD. They've failed on Virtual Boy and, various other gimmicks.

Analysis are not always correct, sometimes they are, sometimes they would be perfect 10 years from now, other times too late.

Don't worry, be happy.

"but "I" believe AMD has taxed the ideas of it's current crop of engineers. I don't believe intel has to worry about that."

lol,
and you believe intel has smarter engineers, why?
last i checked, the performance margine between the two is negligible. (not counting the un-released conroe)
we still have yet to see how AMD will counter the conroe. when it's released that is.

AMD is already cutting prices for cpu's! Do you think why ? if they wouldn't be afraid of it, they wouldn't do it.
Lets say it AMD gained so much market because Intel Netburst (P4) was bad mistake that Intel was promoting.
There was moment when P3 and P4 had the same clocks, and P3 was faster. Then they upped P4 clock but its still slowe then Athlons and is power hog. So why Conroe is so good ? Because its from Pentium 3 -> Pentium Mobile -> Core Duo & Conroe
It don't look good for AMD, and not good for customers. Monopoly of Intel means bad things for us, but things don't look good. Intel have already big fab of 0.65 nm chips in Ireland. They plan on releasing 0.45nm chips on the end of 2007.
What AMD is planning to release 0.65nm cpu's on beginning of 2007 - this shows how they're behind because of lack of money compared to Intel, transition to new, smaller production technology isn't easy and is quite expensive. So they doing something to stay alive in the wild.

PS. Sorry for my english

i still use a dual chip p3 rig for internet browsing. outperforms most p4's under 2.6GHz. i use AMD for gaming though, and will continue to do so until intel comes out with something better.
you mention the process size, but did that have any relevence concerning athlon 64 vs p4?
intels always been one step ahead in manufacturing. yet AMD is on par with performance. also cooler running for the most part. smaller isn't necessarily faster.

I'm going to have to chime in here on the same comments about them being able to make systems "more powerful" with a combined CPU/GPU.

They have got to be insane on making a comment like that. The CPU has to use system memory for its processing so where do they thing the GPU's memory is going to come from? Do they expect people to run 2-4GBs in there systems to be able to handle the memory requirements?

Also, as PC_Tool has stated, what about the dispersion of heat? I know that my ATI 9800XT was a damn space heater compared to my CPU and I had to make sure my rig was well ventilated to get rid of that generated heat. How in the hell would they even come close to being able to keep a "tri-core" chip cool (assuming they tried to put a GPU onto a dual core system). The thermals would be insane.

As PC_Tool stated, I feel sorry for the poor kids in China :)

Sounds like they are talking about an entirely new idea, so why can't they design entirely new motherboards around it? Graphics memory slots anyone?

What if they added a REAL Physics Processing unit to the CPU, or maybe things that don't advance but once in a while...like DX instructions? Or what if they added some of ATI's Pixel Shader Processors? - Why not??
It seems like the next logical step...whether AMD bought ATI or not...
It seems more likely than buying 3 (!) video cards to play physics intense games!
I don't think for a moment that the entire GPU will be integrated into the CPU, as GPU technology advances faster than any other segment of the computer world...working on 60nm processes (and smaller!) in the hundreds of millions (perhaps billions!) of transistors.
To force a CPU/GPU combo would be incompatible with the high-end market...they know it, we know it, it's not feasible (maybe for low-end Wal-Mart computers, ) but definately not Hard-Core Gamers/enthusiasts, as we pay top dollar just to be out ahead of the pack. There is more profit built into each high-end product than in mid and low end products...they know it.
I believe that this will end up good for everyone that wasn't expecting a Conroe Crossfire platform!

Sure, but then we're talking another product as well (Upgradeable Graphics RAM). Yet *another* product you have to buy for your AMD board that you *wouldn't* need for your Intel board.

I'm still of the belief we will not see this "integration" in anything other than low-end systems and appliances.

Putting a seperate processor on-board for each function is an awesome idea (Amiga, anyone?), but it would involve turning the PC into something other than a PC.

Not something I'm not sure AMD really wants to get into....

Good point.

They could always make a high quality blender with the CPU/GPU. add a nice heat sink and use the fan to make mixed drinks.

but how much do you really know about microproccessors? i mean do you know EXCACTLY how they work? how transistors interface with each other to output information based off of input? it is sensless for us to sit around saying "oh well i dont think that would work because of the little things i have picked up along the way that may or may not be true"

How many of us REALLY understand how they work? i dont think a single one of us has sat around and designed one, or even looked at a full blueprint of one. so its really useless of us to make theorys about how things will or will not work or decide that it is a stupid idea when we have no idea if it is.

i mean does anyone realize that a athalon 64 3200+ and a athalon 64 3400+ are the same freaking chip? just that one came out better in the fabs. its the same all around, as long as the core is the same and the rest, some are just rated at higher frequencies because they came out as intended in the nano-fabs.

The AMD "Martini".

...Stirred, not shaken.

I wish it was nVidia merged with AMD!

So nVidia could stop making the only video cards Real Gamers™ use?

Shame on you....

Well I was expecting AMD would help nVidia to make even better cards! And aren't Real Gamers™ use both AMD and nVidia? So what would be the problem if they merge?

I don't know if I would really lik ehaving the CPU and GPU integrated. For one, the heat of the combined processors would be tremendous and secondly there goes graphics upgradbility out the window.

Wouldn't it be possible to have the integrated GPU be turned off if an external PCI Express x16 graphics card were installed? If not then maybe AMD will offer versions of its processors that don't have integrated graphics.

I am sure the integreated solution will be for lower end PCs or handheld, POS, and other niche devices.

Hopefully they'll use ATi's chipset capabilities and make some decent chipsets to compete with the nForce line.

"Hopefully they'll use ATi's chipset capabilities and make some decent chipsets to compete with the nForce line."

i think you hit the nail on the head with that one. it's probably one of the biggest reasons for the merger, besides the obvious competition with intels integrated graphics.

Hopefully it won't take the ATi portion of AMD to get back up to speed now that they have to basically start over.

I'm not sure how much of the tech in their current chipsets is licensed from Intel, but if it's anything significant, they've got a bit of work to do.

The 2 underdogs combine to take on the top dogs..

I wouldn't really call ATI an underdog, they've pretty much owned the PC gaming market for the last few years (despite NVIDIA's stupid "Way it's meant to be played" campaign).

Haha, Banquo makes himself look foolish again..

http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html

Since when when did Owning the market mean 40% share?

ROFL. You're using statistics from *one* game's voluntary polls as fact?

All that shows is that 41% of Valve's customers who decided to fill out the survey use ATI. Big deal. I can say that 100% of personal computer owners have monitors, too. Wasn't that easy?

The graphics market != Valve customers.

I'm too lazy to look up any real stats. I just thought it was funny that you were relying on such a random source of info.

Let's see, personal insults and then a survey from Valve's web site about what cards a few Steam customers use as a basis for NVIDIA's entire market share and I'm the one that looks foolish? Yeah, ok. Despite your silly little survey ATI has had a larger market share than NVIDIA for the last few years. My point was that a company that has been around since 1985, has a large OEM market and the largest share in the 3D gaming market isn't exactly an underdog, nor is AMD actually. You might want to get a dictionary by the way, I don't think that word means what you think it means.

1/ it's not one game, it's steam, so it covers multiple games.

2/ The games covered are pretty big (Half Life2, CounterStrike), and cover a large proportion of gamers. So it's prety realistic survery, even if it is voluntary (or are you suggesting more NVidia owners click "yes" compared to ATi?)

Despite the fact it's only one game (which we have already discussed is not true), it's still a pretty accurate of what the general gaming populating are using.

It also shows how different the AMD/Intel mix is between Gamers and general PC users.

When talking about Gamers, it's almost 50/50 with a slight lead (currently) to AMD.

When talking about general PC users, it's 75/25 to Intel. (granted the steam survey does not show this, but these stats are commonly available elsewhere)..

few? 700,000 results. I would call that statistically valid.

And Intel has 77% market share in x86 market, so yes that does make AMD the underdog.

Thats a game pole, did everyone who owns a PC take that poll? No.

So, show me something else to prove your point.

P.S. Get so real facts eh?

Okay, so how many systems we're polled? 700,000? So thats maybe... I dunno lets be really really safe and say 1% of the PCs on the planet. You're crazy to think the poll is viable information.

You could go ahead and say that "Gamers" Tend to have Nvidia, and there is a a 50/50 intel and amd split. However, don't say that "1%" is a reliable survey.

Lastly, it is more likely that there is much more than 700,000,000 PCs in the world, taking your poll down to 0.1% of the total PC market. Oh and lets not forget Macs eh?

Give us some real facts eh?

It's still statistically relevant however you juggle it.

I would have to say the sample size is not the issue at all. The issue is the sample itself. While he is claiming "Steam covers multiple games" makes it valid, this is wrong. This does not even make the survey accurate for "gamers" in general. I consider myself somewhat of a gamer, not hardcore but a gamer nonetheless, and have never played counterstrike and haven't played HL2 in months. And I never took the survey. HL2 is the only game I have played through Steam and the only reason I have Steam on my PC, so in my case Steam is one game. Or really, it is a loader required for the game, a loader I resent having to install in the first place.
I wonder how many and what kind of people do not play valve games because they do not want Steam. You know, the people excluded completely from the survey.

i don't like steam either
:-p

That is only for people who use Steam, only a drop in the bucket compared to total market share. You're being ridiculous. In the total market ATI has a larger share.

underdog ( ) n. One that is expected to lose a contest or struggle

No, it isn't. You just can't admit that you are wrong can you?

http://www.jonpeddie.com.../MarketWatch_Q205.shtml

http://www.dvhardware.net/article3367.html

http://www.extremetech.c...c=ETRSS02129TX1K0000532

So how do you think they measure electing results or how many people watch tv programs ? Do you think they ask every people how they voted or check every man what they watch ?

They ask for example 1000 representative people, then they divide it by % and calculate real numbers. So even if its only 1% of all pcs on the planet its quite representative for gamers as CS and CS:S are most played games on planet.

If few thousand people is enough for measuring how many people watched tv program, 700K is enough to measure what gamers have in they computers. If you don't have any idea what statistic is go study. Sorry for my english, at least i know its bad and its not my native language.

Sorry you don't know s*** about statistic, he is realy right, its quite representative if its realy 700K people.

All it is saying that most of the people who use steam have Nvidia. Great, spiffy, its still not proof that Nvidia is in control.

Its just like a Public poll during an election, or like the nelson ratings that TV shows get. They have a margin of error.

Lets imagine you just took all the TV ratings from people who drove specialty sports cars. Do you think these people might watch more shows about cars?

Now you have a game that when it came out was a top of the line performance game. Many people even went out and bought a new video card to play this game, not small cash either 100-500+ USD. This is what I'd call just polling a certain group of users. So yes, the poll is slightly off.

Perhaps there is some flaw I am missing here.

You better go back and read all the replies from other people that explain it quite clear, and perhaps check those links I posted before you go spouting off about who knows what.

it's still a pretty accurate (indication?) of what the general gaming populating are using.

Even if that's true, that's just the gaming population. You'd be surprised how small of a margin that is when considering all PC users. You said it yourself: The CPU stats vary between gaming population and general population. Imagine how much moreso the graphics engine must vary. That's all I was saying...

I'd be willing to bet that integrated graphics users make up the largest single grouping of PC users. Notice: I didn't say majority; just the largest single group.

No, it's not. See my reply above.

Ummm... where do you think statistics come from? No one can "Get so real facts" because that's just impossible. There's way too many people to poll...

However, this poll is not representative of the entire PC-using population. Therefore, it is not a reliable source of info. So at least you're right on that one. =p

Also, I've never played with a "game pole" what does it do? How do you play? Can you show me? =p

yea you forgot that valve recommends nvidia to its steam users, at least since last time i used it, which i not only had the little nvidia icon under it, it also gave me a pop-up style nvidia add when i went to the news section.

no its not, thats like polling the rich to see if they vote republican.

I think ATI is still the underdog. As you said yourself, the gaming market isnt representative of the whole PC market...

Latz, SB

A survey from Valve customers is your proof that nvidia has more market share? A company that openly recommends nvidia in fact?

Are you saying that Steam owners and Gamers are different people? I would say they are the same (but a subset of). Therefore it's stil relevent.

Even if only 20% of gamers had steam and 20% of those actually took the hardware poll, it's still the same sector of the market, and is therefore representitive data.

So does UT2004, what's your point? Yes NVIdia have their "plays the way it's meant to be" or whatever it is, but I doubt that has any sway on anything.

Advertising does sway things a little bit, if I'm playing a game and I want it to perform the best possible, I'm going to go with the game makers reccomendations

You buy a different graphics card from each new game you buy? Hardware manufacturers must love you.

The rest of us, use whatever we already have, as long as it's upto the job...

no but someone who has a computer that is decent but has a crap vid card, buys a new nextt gen game right? then they find out they cant run such and such game. so when they make a decision to get the new upgraded one they choose one that they saw recommended on the boxx of the very game they are upgrading to play. i see it all the time when friends ask me what to do to make their computer run x game or y game. that may sway the survey a bit since many of those games need at least a decently powered computer to play.

Read my post few replys above so you'll get image of what i'm talking about.

I despise ATI, because their software and drivers have always sucked... great hardware is worthless without good drivers to guide it, and I'm sorry... saying their drivers are better than they used to be doesn't mean much either. Better than crap does not necessarily mean good, adequate, or acceptable.

I think this is a strange merger, but a good one for both... I trust AMD to shape things up in ATI, and the graphics being built into AMD chipsets gives us a viable alternative to the God-forsaken Intel graphics chipsets.

Off-topic, I know, but...

a viable alternative to the God-forsaken Intel graphics chipsets.

nVidia 6150.

There ya go. :)

ATi has one out as well. Cannot remember the designation off-hand. Both do quite well. Far better than current Intel Offerings.

As stated in a previous thread, months ago, the 6150LE can run Far-Cry decently. Doom III, you name it.

Intel does not yet have anyting to even compare them to.

That said, I still don't think this is going to affect the gaming segment at all. Anyone who currently sees a need for a serperate graphics solution (off the board) is not going to benefit form this. (Speculation, of course....they could blow us all away, but...)

ATi has one out as well. Cannot remember the designation off-hand. Both do quite well. Far better than current Intel Offerings.

ATI Radeon X200 is the chipset, I believe.

"As stated in a previous thread, months ago, the 6150LE can run Far-Cry decently. Doom III, you name it."

Yeah, maybe at a resolution of 800x600 and with most of the detail options turned off. The nVidia 6150 graphics chipset mainly excels at 2D graphics tasks like playing DVD's or other standard definition video. If you want decent 3D graphics at a reasonable cost the nVidia GeForce 7600GT is the way to go.

I bet you've never used one. :)

I have. They work just fine.

*OBVIOUSLY* a stand-alone solution will work better.

Can you say:

Duh?

Way to show your amazing analytical skills there, my friend.

Yup. Thanks.

Actually I do have one on my Asus M2NPV-VM Socket AM2 motherboard and so far when it comes to serious gaming the nVidia 6150 graphics fall short when gaming at resolutions of 1280x768 or higher. My computer has 1GB of PC667 DDR2 memory with 128MB being used for graphics memory. The nVidia 6150 certainly can't play any of my games in best quality mode (especially not Doom 3).

Graphics quality is equally as important as raw speed. If a GPU can't play games with all of the detail options turned on at HD resolutions at a decent speed then it's worthless.

Jesus.

You just gotta argue, don't you?

1.) Did I ever say it performed better than a current stand-alone solution?

2.) Did I ever claim it could run *anything* maxxed out?

I believe my exact words were "playable".

Try to get that from *any* Intel integrated Graphics solution (the stuff mentioned in the original post I replied to).

Perhaps if you weren't so damn hell-bent on trying to make me look like an idiot, you'd look like less of one.

As for games being worthless at *less* than maxxed options, tell that to *anyone* playing Oblivion now, or Unreal back when it was originally released.

Not everyone's got enough for that 7900GTX SLI. ;)

lol

"nVidia 6150 graphics fall short when gaming at resolutions of 1280x768 or higher with 128MB being used for graphics memory."

ummmm, being that resolution is directly related to video memory...i think your issue is self evident.
:-)

ps. if you didn't understand that.
it's not the GPU's fault you can't run higher resolutions at a decent frame rate, it's your limited video memory. if you want 1600x1200, you need at least 256MB of video memory, if not 512MB for the higher quality games.

well just to see if you were justified, i tried to use my integrated one for quake4, doom 3 and expansion, prey and unreal tournament 2k4 in onslaught mode. all at 1280x768x32 and they all ran great, of course i have 2gb ddr667 (which isnt pc667 by the way its like pc5200 or something) and 512 alocated to graphics and they all run fine, ill try with 1600x1200 later, but it looks to me like you just never gave it a chance. of course then again i am using the omega drivers, and they have been reported as buggy on some integrated solutions. of course then my good performance may justbe a bug too eh?

i think they have an even better one then that now too, like an x250 or something.

Imagine a system with a MoBo that has a CPU socket and a GPU socket, allowing for any cooling solution one could imagine.

Sounds like a move in the right direction. :)

AMD plans to introduce new processor configurations that would integrate the CPU and graphics processor into a single unit. T

Not seperate. A single unit.

Besides, a GPU alone does not a graphics solution make. You'd have to have seperate RAM for each processor for that solution to really work. Shared RAM sucks.

you may be on to something. off to my secret patent lab!

The end result will be smaller, more powerful computers.

Don't ya mean smaller, less-powerful computers?

I really don't see how combining the two is going to create a system that has more horsepower than a custom-built rig.

Sure, on low-end systems, it could be a big boost in performance, (along the lines of nVidia and ATi's recent integrated offerings), but *more* powerful?

Have they even considered heat? Right now the GPU and CPU require seperate fans... They gonna make liquid cooling standard with every new PC?

Damn C/GPU's going to melt it's way straight into some poor Chinese kid's shoes... I can hear the millions of screaming children now...

Won't someone *please* think of the Children!??!?

no doubt...

On a serious note, doesn't this just stink of monopoly all over again? I mean, what's next? You have your AMD CPU/GPU, then your AMD RAM, etc etc etc... Why can't these companies just co-exist on their own and form strategic alliances?

~dnc

Microsoft and Intel operated that way for years... and as Wintel, they were widely considered a duopoly, and it stifled things until AMD finally got things going their way.

Damn C/GPU's going to melt it's way straight into some poor Chinese kid's shoes... I can hear the millions of screaming children now...

Won't someone *please* think of the Children!??!?

Im cleaning diet coke out of my keyboard Hehe

one word

MULLAH $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Time to invest in those keyboard condoms.... ;)

"Don't ya mean smaller, less-powerful computers?
"

Only if you're comparing them to your current gaming behemoth.

But consider how much more effective the AMD Geode NX series, (6-14W), would be with even an ATI integrated X300 core?

A PC that can play basic 3D games the size of VIA's NanoATX - I'd call that smaller and more powerful.

It's all relative.

Having a combined unit does not necessarily mean that will be all that you'll need for gaiming performance. Thats not the way I'd make it anyway.

Now the principle that I'd develop, if I had a say in it, would be a combined unit like they're suggesting which operates fine by itself in a business environment. Now when an extra video card is added, with supported drivers, some of the functions are done on the gpu part of the cpu and the others on the video card. This well help accelarate gaming. Or the GPU part could be used for physics components of the graphics. Maybe even having it selectable!

I'm putting my confidence in AMD and ATI here. They do make CPUs and GPUs, have you done that?

The do??!??!

Really??!?!

Wow!!!

/sarcasm

Think about it for a second, Marty. Look at any integrated solution out there and compare to any *non* integrated solution.

That said...

Why is it fanboys never have a sense of humor?

A PC that can play basic 3D games the size of VIA's NanoATX - I'd call that smaller and more powerful.

Smaller than an alienware rig, yes.

More powerful?

;)

It's all relative.

Okay, I see your point.

What I am trying to say is that AMD and ATI are not trying to make CPU/GPU combos for high end gamers, I'm sure they are creating the "end-user" cheap way of building a PC.

If developed correctly this could be great, and I have confidence in AMD and ATI.

Thats it.

:)

Low-end and appliances.

Yup.

Most certainly, perhaps pocket PC crap. Who knows?

Wow.

Just looking over the comments all day long, I can't help but think that if you took that much energy discussing AMD and ATI and put that into some of my online marketing techniques, you would be wealthy beyond your dreams.

www.carboncopyprofits.com

**** spammer.

Wincing are we? I think the back and forth bantering got a little too old.

Have you visited

www.the2ndcoolestguyontheplanet.com ?

Are the Betanews mods on strike?

no, have you visited www.carbonclikessexwithgoatsandrattlesnakes.com ?