10 ms·
No, I think it is win-win. 1) AMD can sell chips in high end systems where it can't compete with Intel on CPUs or Nvidia on GPUs. 2) Intel can ship a high end
by saas_co_de 9y ago
No, I think it is win-win.
1) AMD can sell chips in high end systems where it can't compete with Intel on CPUs or Nvidia on GPUs.
2) Intel can ship a high end graphics experience without dGPU which gets them a level of graphics in a form factor they couldn't otherwise achieve.
3) Ryzen is a low/mid range chip. Even if it could match Intel's performance it could never match Intel's brand, and Intel doesn't want to match AMDs price so they will stay in different market segments. Ryzen sales will not be hurt.
4) AMD gets valuable brand recognition by getting Radeon into more premium devices which could actually boost sales for cheaper Ryzen/Radeon devices down the line.
5) Shafts Nvidia which is a win for both sides.
6) Opens lines of communication for possible future merger or fab deal, which is not so much an issue from an anti-trust standpoint when you look at the total competitive landscape of ARM, Nvidia, Apple, Qualcomm, etc and the shrinking relevance of x86 in the big picture.
- robert_foss 9y ago1) Intel does not ship GPUs on high-end CPUs.
- DeepYogurt 9y agoI am deeply curious about point 6. If intel bought amd I think it would lead to a massive change in how systems are built. I know there's the danger of a full x86 monopoly, but nvidia has a lot of pressure on intel at the high end and if the windows arm thing ever takes off I'm sure nvidia will have a laptop chip out in no time. If there is a merger, I hope this will make a lot of AMD dream projects like the HPC APU take off, but I also fear that it might lead to a more stagnant intel+amd in a few years time.
- mjevans 9y agoThey could never do a merger for anti-trust and dual sourcing concerns... Having said that, it MIGHT open up the potential for AMD running (some, all?) chips through Intel's fabs and actually enabling a nearly competitive playing field. The best thing that the (US) government could do for the market would actually be to force Intel to split in to a fabrication company and a chip design company. That would enable the military to contract fabrication of higher-end validated CPUs on US soil from whichever sources they wanted...
- sambe 9y agoRegarding 3): most benchmarks I've seen quote 2-7% difference in IPC to Intel. I wouldn't call that low/mid-range. Am I misunderstanding something?
- ferongr 9y agoClocks matter too.
- fgonzag 9y ago10% IPC advantage compounded with up to 20% higher clock speeds in top of the line Desktop CPUs (when OCed at least)
- sambe 9y agoI don't think OC is a fair baseline to qualitatively distinguish between CPU classes (at least low/mid vs high-end). OC is surely a large factor in purchasing decisions for a subset of high-end users, but not all.
- fgonzag 9y agoI was talking max OC on R7 (4.0 - 4.1) vs max OC (5.0-5.1) on i7-7th gen though. Which is a good indicator of the max clocks each platform can get.
- coldtea 9y agoFrom the parent: "Even if it could match Intel's performance it could never match Intel's brand".
- dahauns 9y agoNot with that attitude. (i.e. argued that way this would be more like "setting up for failure" on AMDs part.)
- saas_co_de 9y ago
- nerpderp83 9y agoHow is this not duopoly collusion to push out Nvidia? Smells just like 'competing gas stations' on opposite corners with the same exact prices. AMD can be Aldi, Intel can be Whole Foods.
- jrs95 9y agoWhat Whole Foods are you shopping at that's as cheap as Aldi??!