no more ATI

the only reason I can think of is to get the AMD name further out there in terms of marketing and brand recognition
 
HydroSqueegee said:
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/custompc/news/91589/amd-to-drop-ati-brand.html



yes, i know they were bought out... but :wtf:

why would they want to eliminate the name. Now its AMD vs. nVidia and AMD vs. Intel

:confused:
You have that wrong. It will be Intel+nVidia against AMD. Soon you will not be able to use an ATi/AMD video device in an Intel system. It'll start by AMD systems getting a boost in performance or Intel doing something to specifically discourage their rival's incorportation into their boxes. It'll end with AMD integrating the GPU on die with the CPU(s).
 
theacoustician said:
You have that wrong. It will be Intel+nVidia against AMD. Soon you will not be able to use an ATi/AMD video device in an Intel system. It'll start by AMD systems getting a boost in performance or Intel doing something to specifically discourage their rival's incorportation into their boxes. It'll end with AMD integrating the GPU on die with the CPU(s).

they allready have the shitty nVidia "the way its ment to be played" BS for games now, so why not take the same route with chipsets and processors too. :rolleyes:
 
I just can't see them putting the vid card on the processor die. That doesn't make sense to me. it would require AMD to have A LOT of different chip options. Not only would you need to choose the type of processor, but you would have at least 2 choices for vid cards on that processor.

I can't see it. I hope not anyway.
 
ceiling fly said:
I just can't see them putting the vid card on the processor die. That doesn't make sense to me. it would require AMD to have A LOT of different chip options. Not only would you need to choose the type of processor, but you would have at least 2 choices for vid cards on that processor.

I can't see it. I hope not anyway.

on board ZIF for video processor core and slots for so-dimm sized GDDR. quad core proc and dual core video proc.

... i would kinda like to see that
 
ceiling fly said:
I just can't see them putting the vid card on the processor die. That doesn't make sense to me. it would require AMD to have A LOT of different chip options. Not only would you need to choose the type of processor, but you would have at least 2 choices for vid cards on that processor.

I can't see it. I hope not anyway.
Who cares about having options when you can own the market end to end?
 
HydroSqueegee said:
on board ZIF for video processor core and slots for so-dimm sized GDDR. quad core proc and dual core video proc.

... i would kinda like to see that
ya, but a business isn't you. nor is a housewife that only uses the PC to check her email.
 
ceiling fly said:
The obvious answer is consumers, but I'm guessing you have a reply already for that.
:lol:

I would say most consumers won't really care. If you combine your business desktop sales with you average consumer sales, you've got a large majority of people who never upgrade or even open their computers. From a pure profit motive, makes sense.

I think it will stunt the rapid evolution of video cards that we've seen in the past couple of years and overall hurt the industry. I also don't see how the hell they will cool a CPU-GPU monster die short of phase-change cooling.

I hope I'm wrong. I don't want them to integrate, but I don't see how it won't happen without a hell of a loud outcry from consumers to stop it.
 
theacoustician said:
:lol:

I would say most consumers won't really care. If you combine your business desktop sales with you average consumer sales, you've got a large majority of people who never upgrade or even open their computers. From a pure profit motive, makes sense.

I think it will stunt the rapid evolution of video cards that we've seen in the past couple of years and overall hurt the industry. I also don't see how the hell they will cool a CPU-GPU monster die short of phase-change cooling.

I hope I'm wrong. I don't want them to integrate, but I don't see how it won't happen without a hell of a loud outcry from consumers to stop it.

they would be retarded to stop the continued development of video technology. nVidia would swoop in and kill them in that market... which would negate buying ATI in the first place.
 
HydroSqueegee said:
they would be retarded to stop the continued development of video technology. nVidia would swoop in and kill them in that market... which would negate buying ATI in the first place.
I never said they're stopping developing, they just aren't going to continue at the Cold War pace of development they're on now.

edit : and they didn't buy ATi for the high end graphics. They bought them to compete in the integrated graphics arena with Intel.
 
Last edited:
theacoustician said:
I never said they're stopping developing, they just aren't going to continue at the Cold War pace of development they're on now.

they have to keep up or they'll be buried overnight by nvidia...again that would negate any value to the purchase of ATI
 
theacoustician said:
I never said they're stopping developing, they just aren't going to continue at the Cold War pace of development they're on now.

edit : and they didn't buy ATi for the high end graphics. They bought them to compete in the integrated graphics arena with Intel.

you think they won't continue to compete on the high end? that's like throwing away free cash unless it's somehow not profitable which I wouldn't suspect to be true
 
why_ask_why said:
they have to keep up or they'll be buried overnight by nvidia...again that would negate any value to the purchase of ATI
No, Intel sells more graphics chips than ATi or nVidia, period. They own a large chunk of the mobile and on-board graphics markets. They are the #1 graphics solution provider in the world. AMD saw this and realized the way to make strides in the business market is to have an integrated graphics unit of their own. Rather than develop one, they bought one. This isn't about high end graphics.
 
theacoustician said:
No, Intel sells more graphics chips than ATi or nVidia, period. They own a large chunk of the mobile and on-board graphics markets. They are the #1 graphics solution provider in the world. AMD saw this and realized the way to make strides in the business market is to have an integrated graphics unit of their own. Rather than develop one, they bought one. This isn't about high end graphics.
Isn't S3 still around? Why not buy them then? I just don't buy the fact that they bought ATI just for integrated graphics. What portion of ATI's business is that?
 
theacoustician said:
No, Intel sells more graphics chips than ATi or nVidia, period. They own a large chunk of the mobile and on-board graphics markets. They are the #1 graphics solution provider in the world. AMD saw this and realized the way to make strides in the business market is to have an integrated graphics unit of their own. Rather than develop one, they bought one. This isn't about high end graphics.

that doesn't make much sense...it's like buying a car, realizing you needed a wagon, calling your car a wagon instead and hoping for the best :fly:

*couldn't think of an analogy worth a shit* :lol:

to castrate ati into merely a mobile or on-board producer loses ati's core business AND billions of $'s
 
why_ask_why said:
you think they won't continue to compete on the high end? that's like throwing away free cash unless it's somehow not profitable which I wouldn't suspect to be true
Will they still put out a product for a while? Sure. If you really think they're concerned with defeating nVidia, you're shortsighted. They're looking at taking down Intel and knows its been close to having them on the ropes. They think the killing blow will be to rip the business market out from under them. nVidia is simply an afterthought.