Intel--Nvidia merger or acqusition. unlikely, but possible ?

Discussion in 'ATI Video Cards' started by AirRaid, Jul 24, 2006.

  1. AirRaid

    AirRaid Guest

    http://money.cnn.com/2006/07/24/technology/nvidia_intel/index.htm

    AMD-ATI deal boosts shares of Nvidia

    Speculation about a possible partnership between Nvidia and Intel has
    driven the shares up nearly 10%.

    By Amanda Cantrell, CNNMoney.com staff writer
    July 24 2006: 3:23 PM EDT

    NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Regardless of what the market makes of the
    impending nuptials of PC chipmaker Advanced Micro Devices and graphics
    chip maker ATI Technologies, one clear winner in the match-up appears
    to be Nvidia, at least as far as traders are concerned.

    Shares of Nvidia (up $1.66 to $19.43, Charts), one of the largest
    makers of graphics chips for computers and other consumer electronics -
    and the number one competitor to ATI (up $3.00 to $19.56, Charts) -
    were up nearly 10 percent in mid-day trading. AMD (down $0.90 to
    $17.36, Charts) said today that it will spend $5.4 billion to acquire
    ATI in a cash and stock deal that is expected to close in the fourth
    quarter.
    NVD.mkw.gif

    Analysts and investors say that the spike in Nvidia's shares could be
    attributed in part to speculation that Nvidia is in talks with Intel
    (up $0.28 to $17.43, Charts), the number one maker of chips for PCs, to
    supply graphics chips to the company.

    But people in the business are divided on whether today's news means
    that Nvidia and Intel will reach an agreement, or whether such a
    partnership would take the shape of an out-and-out acquisition.

    And still others are not convinced that today's news is beneficial to
    Nvidia at all.
    N-convenient side effect

    David Wu, an analyst at Global Crown Capital, said the news of ATI's
    sale to AMD could be bad news for Nvidia in the short term.

    That's because Nvidia has done brisk business selling chipsets, or the
    pairs of chips that surround microprocessors, to AMD, particularly for
    AMD's popular Opteron server chips. Those ties may have to be severed
    in light of the deal, according to Wu.

    "AMD has been very good to Nvidia and Nvidia has been very good to
    AMD," Wu said. "If you were to look at Nvidia's chip set business, it's
    20 percent of total revenues, and 90 percent of that is for the AMD
    platform. They built a very successful premium brand image on the AMD
    side of the business and very little on Intel."

    Eric Ross, an analyst with ThinkEquity Partners, agrees that today's
    news is bad for Nvidia because of its ties to AMD.

    "They've seen their biggest growth in revenues specifically because of
    the partnership with AMD and that just goes away (with the sale)," said
    Ross.

    Ross also believes Intel will have to come up with its own strategy for
    making high-end graphics processors. Intel currently makes graphic
    processors, but these are designed for low-end machines, unlike the
    souped-up processors that Nvidia and ATI make for demanding,
    graphics-heavy applications such as gaming. But he's not convinced that
    buying Nvidia is on Intel's mind.

    "It's possible, but it's less likely than you'd think," said Ross.

    That's in part because of Intel's well-documented problems of losing
    market share and slowing growth, which have caused the chip maker to
    put up several consecutive quarters of weak performance. That led to a
    broad restructuring at the company, which is still taking place.

    Analysts agree that while today's news means Intel will likely need to
    come up with its own approach to high end graphics processors, buying
    Nvidia outright is not necessarily the answer.

    "Intel will not change course and buy Nvidia," said Hans Mosesmann,
    senior vice president and semiconductor analyst at Moors & Cabot.
    "They're on a mission to reduce cost, become more focused, and get in
    tune with their core competencies."
    Nvidia + Intel? Maybe, maybe not

    But unlike Ross, Mosesmann does not believe AMD's plans to buy ATI
    necessarily spells bad news for Nvidia. Mosesmann estimates that
    chipset sales account for roughly 15 to 16 percent of Nvidia's total
    sales, and that about half of those chipsets are going to AMD's Opteron
    server chips.

    Mosesmann acknowledges that estimates of the percentage of Nvidia's
    total sales that come from chipsets vary, and that some analysts think
    the number is a bit higher than he does.

    "ATI doesn't do chipsets for servers, so that business is not going
    away," said Mosesmann. "The chipset business that could be lost is
    maybe in the mid- to high-single digits [of Nvidia's revenues] at
    best."

    Jane Snorek, senior research analyst with FAF Advisors, is among those
    convinced that Intel would not buy Nvidia, in part because she thinks
    the shareholder backlash would be severe.

    "If Intel bought Nvidia, I think that would be the end of (Intel
    president and CEO Paul) Otellini," said Snorek, whose firm does not own
    any chip stocks in the funds she advises. "AMD paid a 25 percent
    premium on ATI and they missed their numbers, and the stock's been
    hammered. There's no way [Intel] could afford" to take that risk, she
    said.

    But she does believe Nvidia may well strike a deal with Intel, and one
    that could benefit both companies in the long run.

    "If Nvidia feels threatened by this AMD/ATI partnership, it could form
    a partnership with Intel, which could really use a reliable partner on
    the high end of graphics chips," said Snorek.

    Kevin Landis, chief investment officer of Firsthand Funds, which runs
    mutual funds specializing in tech stocks, agreed that a partnership
    between Intel and Nvidia in which the latter supplied high-end chips to
    the former could make sense.

    But he's not so sure that Intel buying Nvidia is necessarily out of the
    question.

    "The issue with Intel is not on the balance sheet, it's on the income
    statement," said Landis, whose funds own small positions in Intel and
    AMD but not in Nvidia or ATI. "It's lack of growth, issues with profit
    margins, and competitiveness. The balance sheet is so darn strong, most
    shareholders would say whatever you need to do to get growing again, do
    it."

    Landis noted that with Nvidia currently sporting a market cap of
    roughly $7 billion, the purchase would be less costly for Intel, with a
    market cap of roughly $101 billion, than it was for AMD to buy ATI.
    AMD's market cap is about $8.5 billion, while ATI's is about $5
    billion.

    "Intel has disappointed people with lack of growth or not always having
    a best of breed product," he said. "But say what you will, they
    continue to make a lot of money, and they could spend quite a bit more
    on Nvidia then AMD spent on ATI and they wouldn't feel it nearly as
    much."

    Ross of ThinkEquity Partners does not own shares of AMD, ATI, Intel or
    Nvidia but his firm makes a market in shares of Intel and Nvidia.
    Mosesmann of Moor's and Cabot does not own shares of the companies he
    mentioned, and his firm does not have banking ties to the companies. Wu
    owns shares of ATI and Intel, but his firm does not have banking ties
    to the company.
     
    AirRaid, Jul 24, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. AirRaid

    EDM Guest

    "AirRaid" <> wrote in message news:...
    > http://money.cnn.com/2006/07/24/technology/nvidia_intel/index.htm
    >
    > AMD-ATI deal boosts shares of Nvidia
    >
    > Speculation about a possible partnership between Nvidia and Intel has
    > driven the shares up nearly 10%.
    >
    > By Amanda Cantrell, CNNMoney.com staff writer
    > July 24 2006: 3:23 PM EDT
    >
    > NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Regardless of what the market makes of the
    > impending nuptials of PC chipmaker Advanced Micro Devices and graphics
    > chip maker ATI Technologies, one clear winner in the match-up appears
    > to be Nvidia, at least as far as traders are concerned.


    And that's not because of Intel/Nvidia merger speculation.
    It's because AMD shareholders are about to get soaked,
    paying a 25% premium for stock in a crap company who
    can't write a decent Windows driver to save their lives.
     
    EDM, Jul 25, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. VERY unlikely that Intel will seek to acquire NVidia.

    First, Intel has their own video chip group, which does the video in the
    chipsets (the Intel GMA's .... Graphics Media Accelerators). Yes,
    that's been low end, but they could do high-end if Intel wanted to.
    Intel simply hasn't wanted to.

    Second, a major reason for AMD's acquisition of ATI isn't graphics at
    all, it's that ATI is now doing chipsets, and AMD wanted to acquire a
    more robust chipset capability to better compete with Intel, which makes
    superb chipsets (AMD used to do chipsets, 4-6 years ago, but stopped;
    now they want to get back into that, from all appearances).

    Third, Intel is likely to be barred from any significant acquisition
    because of their size and anti-trust / monopoly considerations. AMD, as
    the small underdog, had no such anti-trust or monopoly concerns.


    AirRaid wrote:

    > http://money.cnn.com/2006/07/24/technology/nvidia_intel/index.htm
    >
    > AMD-ATI deal boosts shares of Nvidia
    >
    > Speculation about a possible partnership between Nvidia and Intel has
    > driven the shares up nearly 10%.
    >
    > By Amanda Cantrell, CNNMoney.com staff writer
    > July 24 2006: 3:23 PM EDT
    >
    > NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Regardless of what the market makes of the
    > impending nuptials of PC chipmaker Advanced Micro Devices and graphics
    > chip maker ATI Technologies, one clear winner in the match-up appears
    > to be Nvidia, at least as far as traders are concerned.
    >
    > Shares of Nvidia (up $1.66 to $19.43, Charts), one of the largest
    > makers of graphics chips for computers and other consumer electronics -
    > and the number one competitor to ATI (up $3.00 to $19.56, Charts) -
    > were up nearly 10 percent in mid-day trading. AMD (down $0.90 to
    > $17.36, Charts) said today that it will spend $5.4 billion to acquire
    > ATI in a cash and stock deal that is expected to close in the fourth
    > quarter.
    > NVD.mkw.gif
    >
    > Analysts and investors say that the spike in Nvidia's shares could be
    > attributed in part to speculation that Nvidia is in talks with Intel
    > (up $0.28 to $17.43, Charts), the number one maker of chips for PCs, to
    > supply graphics chips to the company.
    >
    > But people in the business are divided on whether today's news means
    > that Nvidia and Intel will reach an agreement, or whether such a
    > partnership would take the shape of an out-and-out acquisition.
    >
    > And still others are not convinced that today's news is beneficial to
    > Nvidia at all.
    > N-convenient side effect
    >
    > David Wu, an analyst at Global Crown Capital, said the news of ATI's
    > sale to AMD could be bad news for Nvidia in the short term.
    >
    > That's because Nvidia has done brisk business selling chipsets, or the
    > pairs of chips that surround microprocessors, to AMD, particularly for
    > AMD's popular Opteron server chips. Those ties may have to be severed
    > in light of the deal, according to Wu.
    >
    > "AMD has been very good to Nvidia and Nvidia has been very good to
    > AMD," Wu said. "If you were to look at Nvidia's chip set business, it's
    > 20 percent of total revenues, and 90 percent of that is for the AMD
    > platform. They built a very successful premium brand image on the AMD
    > side of the business and very little on Intel."
    >
    > Eric Ross, an analyst with ThinkEquity Partners, agrees that today's
    > news is bad for Nvidia because of its ties to AMD.
    >
    > "They've seen their biggest growth in revenues specifically because of
    > the partnership with AMD and that just goes away (with the sale)," said
    > Ross.
    >
    > Ross also believes Intel will have to come up with its own strategy for
    > making high-end graphics processors. Intel currently makes graphic
    > processors, but these are designed for low-end machines, unlike the
    > souped-up processors that Nvidia and ATI make for demanding,
    > graphics-heavy applications such as gaming. But he's not convinced that
    > buying Nvidia is on Intel's mind.
    >
    > "It's possible, but it's less likely than you'd think," said Ross.
    >
    > That's in part because of Intel's well-documented problems of losing
    > market share and slowing growth, which have caused the chip maker to
    > put up several consecutive quarters of weak performance. That led to a
    > broad restructuring at the company, which is still taking place.
    >
    > Analysts agree that while today's news means Intel will likely need to
    > come up with its own approach to high end graphics processors, buying
    > Nvidia outright is not necessarily the answer.
    >
    > "Intel will not change course and buy Nvidia," said Hans Mosesmann,
    > senior vice president and semiconductor analyst at Moors & Cabot.
    > "They're on a mission to reduce cost, become more focused, and get in
    > tune with their core competencies."
    > Nvidia + Intel? Maybe, maybe not
    >
    > But unlike Ross, Mosesmann does not believe AMD's plans to buy ATI
    > necessarily spells bad news for Nvidia. Mosesmann estimates that
    > chipset sales account for roughly 15 to 16 percent of Nvidia's total
    > sales, and that about half of those chipsets are going to AMD's Opteron
    > server chips.
    >
    > Mosesmann acknowledges that estimates of the percentage of Nvidia's
    > total sales that come from chipsets vary, and that some analysts think
    > the number is a bit higher than he does.
    >
    > "ATI doesn't do chipsets for servers, so that business is not going
    > away," said Mosesmann. "The chipset business that could be lost is
    > maybe in the mid- to high-single digits [of Nvidia's revenues] at
    > best."
    >
    > Jane Snorek, senior research analyst with FAF Advisors, is among those
    > convinced that Intel would not buy Nvidia, in part because she thinks
    > the shareholder backlash would be severe.
    >
    > "If Intel bought Nvidia, I think that would be the end of (Intel
    > president and CEO Paul) Otellini," said Snorek, whose firm does not own
    > any chip stocks in the funds she advises. "AMD paid a 25 percent
    > premium on ATI and they missed their numbers, and the stock's been
    > hammered. There's no way [Intel] could afford" to take that risk, she
    > said.
    >
    > But she does believe Nvidia may well strike a deal with Intel, and one
    > that could benefit both companies in the long run.
    >
    > "If Nvidia feels threatened by this AMD/ATI partnership, it could form
    > a partnership with Intel, which could really use a reliable partner on
    > the high end of graphics chips," said Snorek.
    >
    > Kevin Landis, chief investment officer of Firsthand Funds, which runs
    > mutual funds specializing in tech stocks, agreed that a partnership
    > between Intel and Nvidia in which the latter supplied high-end chips to
    > the former could make sense.
    >
    > But he's not so sure that Intel buying Nvidia is necessarily out of the
    > question.
    >
    > "The issue with Intel is not on the balance sheet, it's on the income
    > statement," said Landis, whose funds own small positions in Intel and
    > AMD but not in Nvidia or ATI. "It's lack of growth, issues with profit
    > margins, and competitiveness. The balance sheet is so darn strong, most
    > shareholders would say whatever you need to do to get growing again, do
    > it."
    >
    > Landis noted that with Nvidia currently sporting a market cap of
    > roughly $7 billion, the purchase would be less costly for Intel, with a
    > market cap of roughly $101 billion, than it was for AMD to buy ATI.
    > AMD's market cap is about $8.5 billion, while ATI's is about $5
    > billion.
    >
    > "Intel has disappointed people with lack of growth or not always having
    > a best of breed product," he said. "But say what you will, they
    > continue to make a lot of money, and they could spend quite a bit more
    > on Nvidia then AMD spent on ATI and they wouldn't feel it nearly as
    > much."
    >
    > Ross of ThinkEquity Partners does not own shares of AMD, ATI, Intel or
    > Nvidia but his firm makes a market in shares of Intel and Nvidia.
    > Mosesmann of Moor's and Cabot does not own shares of the companies he
    > mentioned, and his firm does not have banking ties to the companies. Wu
    > owns shares of ATI and Intel, but his firm does not have banking ties
    > to the company.
    >
     
    Barry Watzman, Jul 25, 2006
    #3
  4. AirRaid

    Chad G Guest

    On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 23:43:38 +0000, EDM wrote:

    > "AirRaid" <> wrote in message news:...
    >> http://money.cnn.com/2006/07/24/technology/nvidia_intel/index.htm
    >>
    >> AMD-ATI deal boosts shares of Nvidia
    >>
    >> Speculation about a possible partnership between Nvidia and Intel has
    >> driven the shares up nearly 10%.
    >>
    >> By Amanda Cantrell, CNNMoney.com staff writer
    >> July 24 2006: 3:23 PM EDT
    >>
    >> NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Regardless of what the market makes of the
    >> impending nuptials of PC chipmaker Advanced Micro Devices and graphics
    >> chip maker ATI Technologies, one clear winner in the match-up appears
    >> to be Nvidia, at least as far as traders are concerned.

    >
    > And that's not because of Intel/Nvidia merger speculation.
    > It's because AMD shareholders are about to get soaked,
    > paying a 25% premium for stock in a crap company who
    > can't write a decent Windows driver to save their lives.


    Ha! That's funny, cuz they can't seem to write a decent linux driver
    either. Partnership or not, all my future computer purchases will be AMD
    processorts and Nvidia GPUs, ATI+linux=FUBAR.
     
    Chad G, Jul 25, 2006
    #4
  5. AirRaid

    Yousuf Khan Guest

    Barry Watzman wrote:
    > VERY unlikely that Intel will seek to acquire NVidia.
    >
    > First, Intel has their own video chip group, which does the video in the
    > chipsets (the Intel GMA's .... Graphics Media Accelerators). Yes,
    > that's been low end, but they could do high-end if Intel wanted to.
    > Intel simply hasn't wanted to.


    Yeah, Intel didn't want to make high-end graphics because it didn't know
    how to. You don't think Intel would've passed up a chance to get into
    the high-end graphics market, if it could actually make these kinds of
    chips. High-end GPUs are more complex than the CPUs from either Intel or
    AMD.

    > Second, a major reason for AMD's acquisition of ATI isn't graphics at
    > all, it's that ATI is now doing chipsets, and AMD wanted to acquire a
    > more robust chipset capability to better compete with Intel, which makes
    > superb chipsets (AMD used to do chipsets, 4-6 years ago, but stopped;
    > now they want to get back into that, from all appearances).


    AMD still does chipsets, it's always the first to market with chipsets
    for its own processors when they are first introduced. It then scales
    back production to let the partners take over this market. This was also
    at a time when it really didn't have enough production capacity to do
    its own chipsets and CPUs at the same time, but now it's building
    capacity like crazy.

    > Third, Intel is likely to be barred from any significant acquisition
    > because of their size and anti-trust / monopoly considerations. AMD, as
    > the small underdog, had no such anti-trust or monopoly concerns.


    Intel spent more than that on acquisitions during the dotcom days. A lot
    of those acquisitions are now being shutdown.

    Yousuf Khan
     
    Yousuf Khan, Jul 25, 2006
    #5
  6. AirRaid

    chrisv Guest

    Barry Watzman wrote:

    >VERY unlikely that Intel will seek to acquire NVidia.
    >
    >First, Intel has their own video chip group, which does the video in the
    >chipsets (the Intel GMA's .... Graphics Media Accelerators). Yes,
    >that's been low end, but they could do high-end if Intel wanted to.
    >Intel simply hasn't wanted to.


    Sure, they could do so, and get their asses kicked, just like last
    time they tried getting into the high-end 3D-graphics business.

    Outside of their main lines, big fat companies like Intel don't do
    well against more nimble and focused competition like Nvidia.

    >Second, a major reason for AMD's acquisition of ATI isn't graphics at
    >all, it's that ATI is now doing chipsets, and AMD wanted to acquire a
    >more robust chipset capability to better compete with Intel, which makes
    >superb chipsets (AMD used to do chipsets, 4-6 years ago, but stopped;
    >now they want to get back into that, from all appearances).


    Not sure why they'd want to compete with Nvidia in the AMD-compatible
    chipset market, though... Doesn't seem smart to me.

    >Third, Intel is likely to be barred from any significant acquisition
    >because of their size and anti-trust / monopoly considerations. AMD, as
    >the small underdog, had no such anti-trust or monopoly concerns.
     
    chrisv, Jul 25, 2006
    #6
  7. On 24 Jul 2006 15:43:17 -0700, "AirRaid" <> wrote:

    >http://money.cnn.com/2006/07/24/technology/nvidia_intel/index.htm
    >
    >AMD-ATI deal boosts shares of Nvidia
    >
    >Speculation about a possible partnership between Nvidia and Intel has
    >driven the shares up nearly 10%.


    If those guys would only take the trouble to look back 3 days, the shares
    have only recovered to where they were last Thursday... after the dump they
    took on Friday.

    --
    Rgds, George Macdonald
     
    George Macdonald, Jul 25, 2006
    #7
  8. AirRaid

    AirRaid Guest

    very interesting interview of all the major players in the industry
    http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_ati_merger/


    this was interesting
    http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_ati_merger/page7.asp



    Morten Brodersen: CEO Third Wave Games (War World: Tactical Combat)

    PC hardware industry: If AMD-ATI decides to build high-speed extensions
    to the AMD CPU's (or support chips) that enables ATI GPU's to run much
    faster using AMD CPU's then it may give AMD-ATI a strategic advantage
    in the high-end PC games hardware space. And it may force NVIDIA to
    work with Intel to create a competitive alternative. This would
    basically split the market into two camps: AMD-ATI and Intel-NVIDIA
    (even if Intel and NVIDIA doesn't merge).
     
    AirRaid, Jul 25, 2006
    #8
  9. AirRaid

    Garrot Guest

    EDM wrote:

    > And that's not because of Intel/Nvidia merger speculation.
    > It's because AMD shareholders are about to get soaked,
    > paying a 25% premium for stock in a crap company who
    > can't write a decent Windows driver to save their lives.
    >
    >


    You actually own an ATI card? I doubt someone who doesn't like their
    drivers would be stupid enough to buy an ATI card. Or are you? If you
    don't own one then you don't know WTF you are talking about. As an owner
    of an ATI X800XL and a Nvidia 7900GT I feel qualified in saying that
    ATI's drivers are just as good, if not beter, than Nvidia's.
     
    Garrot, Jul 25, 2006
    #9
  10. AirRaid

    EDM Guest

    "Garrot" <> wrote in message news:9Pwxg.235772$Mn5.156002@pd7tw3no...
    > EDM wrote:
    >
    > > And that's not because of Intel/Nvidia merger speculation.
    > > It's because AMD shareholders are about to get soaked,
    > > paying a 25% premium for stock in a crap company who
    > > can't write a decent Windows driver to save their lives.
    > >

    >
    > You actually own an ATI card? I doubt someone who doesn't like their
    > drivers would be stupid enough to buy an ATI card. Or are you? If you
    > don't own one then you don't know WTF you are talking about. As an owner
    > of an ATI X800XL and a Nvidia 7900GT I feel qualified in saying that
    > ATI's drivers are just as good, if not beter, than Nvidia's.


    Garrot, I've owned ~two dozen video cards over the past
    20+ years, going back to Paradise/Video7/etc from the
    mid-1980's. I'll give credit where it's due: ATI drivers don't
    suck as bad now as they did for 15 years. Yet they're still
    lacking in a number of regards: no custom resolutions without
    ..NET or third-party software, no gamma adjustment etc etc.
    Their reliance on .NET is what swore me off of them once
    and for all. I installed .NET, it junked up my system so bad
    and caused so many problems I had to do a full image
    restore just to get rid of it completely.

    If their drivers work for you, that's great. They don't for me.
     
    EDM, Jul 26, 2006
    #10
  11. AirRaid

    Judd Guest

    "chrisv" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Barry Watzman wrote:
    >
    > >VERY unlikely that Intel will seek to acquire NVidia.
    > >
    > >First, Intel has their own video chip group, which does the video in the
    > >chipsets (the Intel GMA's .... Graphics Media Accelerators). Yes,
    > >that's been low end, but they could do high-end if Intel wanted to.
    > >Intel simply hasn't wanted to.

    >
    > Sure, they could do so, and get their asses kicked, just like last
    > time they tried getting into the high-end 3D-graphics business.
    >


    they didn't get their asses kicked. They sold it to Microsoft who was
    furious that they entered
    the market. I remember writing applications to their API. It was solid and
    very fast since it
    used MMX technology. MS was pushing DirectX/3D hard and bought out Intel's
    3D unit or
    essentially paid Intel to quit. That was the first sign of their
    fragmenting relationship.
     
    Judd, Jul 26, 2006
    #11
  12. AirRaid

    Judd Guest

    "EDM" <> wrote in message
    news:qIxxg.5124$...
    > "Garrot" <> wrote in message

    news:9Pwxg.235772$Mn5.156002@pd7tw3no...
    > > EDM wrote:
    > >
    > > > And that's not because of Intel/Nvidia merger speculation.
    > > > It's because AMD shareholders are about to get soaked,
    > > > paying a 25% premium for stock in a crap company who
    > > > can't write a decent Windows driver to save their lives.
    > > >

    > >
    > > You actually own an ATI card? I doubt someone who doesn't like their
    > > drivers would be stupid enough to buy an ATI card. Or are you? If you
    > > don't own one then you don't know WTF you are talking about. As an owner
    > > of an ATI X800XL and a Nvidia 7900GT I feel qualified in saying that
    > > ATI's drivers are just as good, if not beter, than Nvidia's.

    >
    > Garrot, I've owned ~two dozen video cards over the past
    > 20+ years, going back to Paradise/Video7/etc from the
    > mid-1980's. I'll give credit where it's due: ATI drivers don't
    > suck as bad now as they did for 15 years. Yet they're still
    > lacking in a number of regards: no custom resolutions without
    > .NET or third-party software, no gamma adjustment etc etc.
    > Their reliance on .NET is what swore me off of them once
    > and for all. I installed .NET, it junked up my system so bad
    > and caused so many problems I had to do a full image
    > restore just to get rid of it completely.
    >
    > If their drivers work for you, that's great. They don't for me.


    Terrible with Linux as well.
     
    Judd, Jul 26, 2006
    #12
  13. AirRaid

    loco Guest

    "EDM" <> wrote in message
    news:qIxxg.5124$...
    > "Garrot" <> wrote in message
    > news:9Pwxg.235772$Mn5.156002@pd7tw3no...
    >> EDM wrote:
    >>
    >> > And that's not because of Intel/Nvidia merger speculation.
    >> > It's because AMD shareholders are about to get soaked,
    >> > paying a 25% premium for stock in a crap company who
    >> > can't write a decent Windows driver to save their lives.
    >> >

    >>
    >> You actually own an ATI card? I doubt someone who doesn't like their
    >> drivers would be stupid enough to buy an ATI card. Or are you? If you
    >> don't own one then you don't know WTF you are talking about. As an owner
    >> of an ATI X800XL and a Nvidia 7900GT I feel qualified in saying that
    >> ATI's drivers are just as good, if not beter, than Nvidia's.

    >
    > Garrot, I've owned ~two dozen video cards over the past
    > 20+ years, going back to Paradise/Video7/etc from the
    > mid-1980's. I'll give credit where it's due: ATI drivers don't
    > suck as bad now as they did for 15 years. Yet they're still
    > lacking in a number of regards: no custom resolutions without
    > .NET or third-party software, no gamma adjustment etc etc.
    > Their reliance on .NET is what swore me off of them once
    > and for all. I installed .NET, it junked up my system so bad
    > and caused so many problems I had to do a full image
    > restore just to get rid of it completely.
    >
    > If their drivers work for you, that's great. They don't for me.
    >
    >

    On the point of the .NET problems , did you realise that with Vista the
    drivers will have to work through .NET , so maybe all the problems ATI has
    with .NET now give it a head start in Vista , nVidia will have to release
    ..NET version of drivers for Vista. I actually read that one of the latest
    nVidia Driver releases actually has begun the process..
    PS I know Vista isn't going to be the be all and end all of computing but it
    will be relevant to many ppl , especially new computer buyers...
     
    loco, Jul 26, 2006
    #13
  14. AirRaid

    EDM Guest

    "loco" <> wrote in message news:44c70f4b$0$484$...
    >
    > "EDM" <> wrote in message
    > news:qIxxg.5124$...
    > > "Garrot" <> wrote in message
    > > news:9Pwxg.235772$Mn5.156002@pd7tw3no...
    > >> EDM wrote:
    > >>
    > >> > And that's not because of Intel/Nvidia merger speculation.
    > >> > It's because AMD shareholders are about to get soaked,
    > >> > paying a 25% premium for stock in a crap company who
    > >> > can't write a decent Windows driver to save their lives.
    > >> >
    > >>
    > >> You actually own an ATI card? I doubt someone who doesn't like their
    > >> drivers would be stupid enough to buy an ATI card. Or are you? If you
    > >> don't own one then you don't know WTF you are talking about. As an owner
    > >> of an ATI X800XL and a Nvidia 7900GT I feel qualified in saying that
    > >> ATI's drivers are just as good, if not beter, than Nvidia's.

    > >
    > > Garrot, I've owned ~two dozen video cards over the past
    > > 20+ years, going back to Paradise/Video7/etc from the
    > > mid-1980's. I'll give credit where it's due: ATI drivers don't
    > > suck as bad now as they did for 15 years. Yet they're still
    > > lacking in a number of regards: no custom resolutions without
    > > .NET or third-party software, no gamma adjustment etc etc.
    > > Their reliance on .NET is what swore me off of them once
    > > and for all. I installed .NET, it junked up my system so bad
    > > and caused so many problems I had to do a full image
    > > restore just to get rid of it completely.
    > >
    > > If their drivers work for you, that's great. They don't for me.
    > >
    > >

    > On the point of the .NET problems , did you realise that with Vista the
    > drivers will have to work through .NET , so maybe all the problems ATI has
    > with .NET now give it a head start in Vista , nVidia will have to release
    > .NET version of drivers for Vista. I actually read that one of the latest
    > nVidia Driver releases actually has begun the process..
    > PS I know Vista isn't going to be the be all and end all of computing but it
    > will be relevant to many ppl , especially new computer buyers...


    We'll see what happens with Vista and .NET. The levels of
    ignorance about their roots and purpose are astonishing, but
    I think (or at least I hope) once the computing world begins
    to understand MS's stated goal -- to chain us to credit cards
    and checkbooks just to use a computer -- they'll high tail it
    away from both .NET and Vista. I know for myself, Win2K
    will likely be my last MS OS. I refuse to "upgrade" even to
    XP because of MS's ridiculous activation requirements.
    What I do with my own computer hardware is none of MS's
    damned business.
     
    EDM, Jul 26, 2006
    #14
  15. AirRaid

    Andrew Guest

    On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 06:59:46 GMT, "EDM" <> wrote:

    >We'll see what happens with Vista and .NET. The levels of
    >ignorance about their roots and purpose are astonishing, but
    >I think (or at least I hope) once the computing world begins
    >to understand MS's stated goal -- to chain us to credit cards
    >and checkbooks just to use a computer -- they'll high tail it
    >away from both .NET and Vista. I know for myself, Win2K
    >will likely be my last MS OS. I refuse to "upgrade" even to
    >XP because of MS's ridiculous activation requirements.
    >What I do with my own computer hardware is none of MS's
    >damned business.


    "The levels of ignorance about their roots and purpose are
    astonishing" - that sums you up nicely.
    --
    Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com
    Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
    please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
    Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
     
    Andrew, Jul 26, 2006
    #15
  16. AirRaid

    EDM Guest

    "Andrew" <spamtrap@127.0.0.1> wrote in message news:...
    > On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 06:59:46 GMT, "EDM" <> wrote:
    >
    > >We'll see what happens with Vista and .NET. The levels of
    > >ignorance about their roots and purpose are astonishing, but
    > >I think (or at least I hope) once the computing world begins
    > >to understand MS's stated goal -- to chain us to credit cards
    > >and checkbooks just to use a computer -- they'll high tail it
    > >away from both .NET and Vista. I know for myself, Win2K
    > >will likely be my last MS OS. I refuse to "upgrade" even to
    > >XP because of MS's ridiculous activation requirements.
    > >What I do with my own computer hardware is none of MS's
    > >damned business.

    >
    > "The levels of ignorance about their roots and purpose are
    > astonishing" - that sums you up nicely.


    Ad hominem? Even you should be able to understand
    plain English:

    On Thursday, June 22, 2000, executives from Microsoft
    Corporation finally unveiled the company's plans for the
    future, which revolve around a set of technologies called
    Microsoft .NET ("Microsoft Dot Net"). And while news
    of this magnitude tends to make even the mainstream press,
    one thing was probably lost on most people that heard
    about the new strategy. Microsoft .NET represents a
    complete and utter change in the way that Microsoft does
    business, and it will gradually transform the company from
    one that supplies shrink-wrapped software to one that
    supplies subscription-based services to its customers
    over the Internet."
    http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/dotnet_backgrounder.asp
     
    EDM, Jul 26, 2006
    #16
  17. AirRaid

    Garrot Guest

    EDM wrote:

    >
    > Garrot, I've owned ~two dozen video cards over the past
    > 20+ years, going back to Paradise/Video7/etc from the
    > mid-1980's. I'll give credit where it's due: ATI drivers don't
    > suck as bad now as they did for 15 years. Yet they're still
    > lacking in a number of regards: no custom resolutions without
    > .NET or third-party software, no gamma adjustment etc etc.
    > Their reliance on .NET is what swore me off of them once
    > and for all. I installed .NET, it junked up my system so bad
    > and caused so many problems I had to do a full image
    > restore just to get rid of it completely.
    >
    > If their drivers work for you, that's great. They don't for me.
    >
    >


    Yea, they were bad at one time but not anymore. No gamma adjustment?
    Must have been a long time since you used their drivers because there is
    gamma adjustment. I've installed .Net and it never caused me any issues.
    Install ATI raw driversrs and Ray Adam's ATI Tray Tools and you don't
    need .Net and also get a lot more functionality than you will from CCC.
     
    Garrot, Jul 26, 2006
    #17
  18. AirRaid

    Garrot Guest

    EDM wrote:

    > On Thursday, June 22, 2000,


    <blink>

    And six years later that hasn't hapened, nor will it with Vista. Just
    when is this subscription method supposed to happen?
     
    Garrot, Jul 26, 2006
    #18
  19. AirRaid

    David Kanter Guest

    > Yeah, Intel didn't want to make high-end graphics because it didn't know
    > how to. You don't think Intel would've passed up a chance to get into
    > the high-end graphics market, if it could actually make these kinds of
    > chips. High-end GPUs are more complex than the CPUs from either Intel or
    > AMD.


    I don't really think so. They have more transistors and functional
    units, but if you look at the design cycle times, it quite obviously
    takes a hell of a lot more time and effort to design an x86 MPU. Also,
    a lot of the stuff in a GPU is replicated, and you can 'fix' a lot of
    stuff in the drivers. Now MPUs obviously use a lot of cache, which is
    replicated, but I suspect that the logic part of MPUs is much more
    complex than GPUs.

    One takes 5 years and hundreds of engineers to design. The other takes
    2-3 years to design and maybe 100 engineers or so.

    Of course, I'm ignoring chipset, compiler and driver efforts, but that
    isn't the question at hand.

    > > Second, a major reason for AMD's acquisition of ATI isn't graphics at
    > > all, it's that ATI is now doing chipsets, and AMD wanted to acquire a
    > > more robust chipset capability to better compete with Intel, which makes
    > > superb chipsets (AMD used to do chipsets, 4-6 years ago, but stopped;
    > > now they want to get back into that, from all appearances).

    >
    > AMD still does chipsets, it's always the first to market with chipsets
    > for its own processors when they are first introduced. It then scales
    > back production to let the partners take over this market. This was also
    > at a time when it really didn't have enough production capacity to do
    > its own chipsets and CPUs at the same time, but now it's building
    > capacity like crazy.


    > > Third, Intel is likely to be barred from any significant acquisition
    > > because of their size and anti-trust / monopoly considerations. AMD, as
    > > the small underdog, had no such anti-trust or monopoly concerns.

    >
    > Intel spent more than that on acquisitions during the dotcom days. A lot
    > of those acquisitions are now being shutdown.


    Intel is hardly barred from acquisitions. Also, AMD will be
    scrutinized because they will now be working very closely with a
    competitor (NV) and any possibility of market share allocation or
    collusion will have to be dealt with. That being said, it's hardly an
    insurmountable problem.

    DK
     
    David Kanter, Jul 26, 2006
    #19
  20. AirRaid

    EDM Guest

    "Garrot" <> wrote in message news:5nFxg.238058$iF6.109491@pd7tw2no...
    > EDM wrote:
    >
    > > On Thursday, June 22, 2000,

    >
    > <blink>
    >
    > And six years later that hasn't hapened, nor will it with Vista.


    Then you don't understand the first thing about Vista.

    > Just when is this subscription method supposed to happen?


    It's already happening, although in the background and without
    the knowledge of most casual computer users. Have you
    installed Adobe Photoshop CS/CS2? Or any Symantec
    products? Or Intuit? Did you know the Macrovision SafeCast
    services installed by this software can enforce any of four
    licensing methods that can be changed at the will of the
    publisher -- one of which is "forced subscription"? Do you
    know why Vista requires .NET for its hardware drivers?

    I could go on, but hopefully you get the idea. Since 2000
    MS has not wavered on their stated purposes and goals of
    ..NET. It was just a matter of buttering up the computing
    masses enough so they won't care once these hammers
    start coming down. But there's absolutely no reason to
    believe me, all you have to do is wait and watch.
     
    EDM, Jul 26, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. rms
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    295
    jeffc
    Nov 19, 2003
  2. Arnold6871
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    291
    First of One
    Jul 30, 2004
  3. John Lewis
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    415
    Dr. Richard Cranium
    Aug 10, 2005
  4. Air Raid
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    177
    Gojira
    Oct 6, 2006
  5. Antonio López de Santa Anna
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    2,028
    Antonio López de Santa Anna
    Oct 10, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page