Overclock.net banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,638 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
http://www.aceshardware.com/forums/r...6920&forumid=1

Quote:


looks like part of the reason AMD/ATI happened was because AMD was having problem with partners moving their chipsets to HT 3.0 so early after their Am2 chipsets...Which makes sense since AMD's official roadmaps show that the dp and qp opterons with the same cores as the desktop K8Ls coming q3 07...won't be out till later in 2008...

So the delay between 1p and 2p would have been even larger had AMD not bought ATI...Perkam

 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,638 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Quote:


Originally Posted by ENTERPRISE1701

Wow interesting. Theres always a hidden agenda that comes out lol.

yup,every merger has a hidden truth
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,062 Posts
Well hey, for someone who doesnt make their own chipsets, this is good. Intel would have a painless transition, unlike AMD because they can just make their own chipsets. BTW, was Intel once just CPU's and then BUY other companies that make up their graphics and chipset division, or did they simply expand?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,807 Posts
That could be one of the reasons but I doubt it is entirely based on that. I thought the Fusion program was also supposed to be a big reason.

Isn't HT 3.0 supposed to run at 2.6 ghz? That could be faster than some of their chip speeds!!!! A chip with a one to one ratio with HT sounds crazy. What are we going to do with all that bandwidth?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,282 Posts
This was definitely a very small part of the acquisition. Something this major doesn't happen because they wanted to accelerate HT 3.0
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,613 Posts
It seems AMD has something up there sleeve after all...

If you can't make them do what you want....buy them! LOL
 

·
 
Joined
·
29,532 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jori
Well hey, for someone who doesnt make their own chipsets, this is good. Intel would have a painless transition, unlike AMD because they can just make their own chipsets. BTW, was Intel once just CPU's and then BUY other companies that make up their graphics and chipset division, or did they simply expand?
Actually, AMD did make chipsets themselves. They didn't specialize in that area, though.
Intel is very wide-spread, making their own mobos, CPUs, chipsets and all that stuff.
AMD is more specialized in CPUs, which can be seen on the stocks/shares.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,195 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jori
Well hey, for someone who doesnt make their own chipsets, this is good. Intel would have a painless transition, unlike AMD because they can just make their own chipsets. BTW, was Intel once just CPU's and then BUY other companies that make up their graphics and chipset division, or did they simply expand?
They Expanded. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,104 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jori
Well hey, for someone who doesnt make their own chipsets, this is good. Intel would have a painless transition, unlike AMD because they can just make their own chipsets. BTW, was Intel once just CPU's and then BUY other companies that make up their graphics and chipset division, or did they simply expand?
They have always made a lot more hardware than AMD. K8L isnt coming out until quarter three of 2007? Wow I thought it was like quarter one.
That's not good for AMD. Maybe this new "fusion" technology will allow them to sweep the mobile market, but I doubt it. Intel mobiles have always been much better than AMD mobiles, everyone knows it.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,195 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by bigvaL

They have always made a lot more hardware than AMD. K8L isnt coming out until quarter three of 2007? Wow I thought it was like quarter one.
That's not good for AMD. Maybe this new "fusion" technology will allow them to sweep the mobile market, but I doubt it. Intel mobiles have always been much better than AMD mobiles, everyone knows it.

A proc/gpu combination on an Intel based mobile machine would cost a lot less and use less power than fusion will initally. It will most likely always cost more to have fusion in a mobile (small parts production = $$$, especially for the smaller PDA mobiles).
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top