AMD to Buy ATI

AMD to buy ATI for about $5.4 billion is an example of the flood of news reports this morning confirming rumors that Advanced Micro Devices is buying ATI Technologies. The About AMD & ATI Page on the ATI Website (thanks Mike Martinez) has a preliminary outline of where this will lead, and here's the announcement:
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Advanced Micro Devices Inc (NYSE:AMD - news), the No. 2 supplier of computer processors, said on Monday it would acquire graphics chip maker ATI Technologies Inc. for $5.4 billion in cash and stock to expand its product mix and grow market share as it battles Intel Corp. (Nasdaq:INTC - news).

Under terms of the deal, AMD will acquire all of the outstanding common shares of ATI (Nasdaq:ATYT - news) (Toronto:ATY.TO - news) for $4.2 billion in cash and 57 million shares of AMD common stock, based on the number of shares of ATI common stock outstanding on July 21.

AMD said it would pay $20.47 for each ATI share. That marks a 24 percent premium over ATI's closing stock price of $16.56 on Nasdaq on Friday. The stock added another 7 percent to $17.68 in after-hours trading amid media reports of the expected deal.

The consideration for each outstanding share of ATI comprises $16.40 in cash and 0.2229 shares of AMD common stock, the companies said.

AMD, the No. 2 supplier of computer processors, said it expects to finance the cash portion of the transaction with a combination of cash and new debt.

AMD has obtained a $2.5 billion term loan commitment from Morgan Stanley Senior Funding which, together with combined existing cash, cash equivalents, and short-term investment balances of about $3 billion, provides full funding for deal, it said.

ATI said it has agreed to a termination fee of $162 million. The deal is subject to the approval of ATI shareholders and regulators in the United States and Canada.
View : : :
55.
 
Re: What this means.
Jul 24, 2006, 19:48
55.
Re: What this means. Jul 24, 2006, 19:48
Jul 24, 2006, 19:48
 
And they cost easily 3x as much...

They cost 3x as much as what? Some fantasy GPU chip that doesn't even exist in the real world?

Gotcha.

It's about cost/performance. 3d cards (and even CPUs) are sorely under-utilized as is.

You're preaching to me about cost/performance? Are you really that clueless?

And no, 3D cards are not under utilized in the current generation. Not unless you run them at low (1024x768 or under) resolutions or don't take advantage of all the features of the cards/games. If you bother to look at current benchmarks you'll see that modern games (Oblivion, FEAR, etc) are, in fact, GPU limited. A few months ago this wasn't true, but developers ramped up the graphics quality and features. The next gen cards will come out and we'll go back to a surplus of power, and then developers will ramp it up again.

As for CPUs -- yes, they've been under utilized in games for years. But I'd kill for more CPU power on my work desktop. And on our servers. But CPUs are largely under-utilized because they're waiting on main memory for data. And yet you want to further slow main memory by increasing contention for it as a resource. Yeah... that's smart. Because we've all seen the absolutely stunning performance numbers given by integrated video chipsets with no memory in comparison to identical or nearly identical GPUs with dedicated memory.

Instead you make vague references about people not doing their research and post nothing of substance yourself.

You didn't do your research. And you want substance? Fine.

Caches do not help with lack of bandwidth -- they help for latency issues. In fact, caches actually harm you if you're starved for transfer rates (aka bandwidth) since they slow requests for data during a cache miss. Which is pretty much all you're going to havve when you're streaming huge amounts of data in and out of the core. Caches are not free. Of course, if you'd ever taken any computer architecture courses you'd know that.

That's why GPUs haven't bothered with caches and have gone for more memory with higher transfer rates. Because caches do absolutlely nothing for them. Unless you consider the onboard memory to be one huge cache (which it effectively is).

But I'm sure you already knew all of this, given how wonderfully insightful and courteous your comments have been.

Date
Subject
Author
1.
Jul 24, 2006Jul 24 2006
10.
Jul 24, 2006Jul 24 2006
24.
Jul 24, 2006Jul 24 2006
56.
Jul 24, 2006Jul 24 2006
13.
Jul 24, 2006Jul 24 2006
2.
Jul 24, 2006Jul 24 2006
7.
Jul 24, 2006Jul 24 2006
9.
Jul 24, 2006Jul 24 2006
3.
Jul 24, 2006Jul 24 2006
4.
Jul 24, 2006Jul 24 2006
16.
Jul 24, 2006Jul 24 2006
17.
Jul 24, 2006Jul 24 2006
18.
Jul 24, 2006Jul 24 2006
   FoxConn
21.
Jul 24, 2006Jul 24 2006
    Re: FoxConn
23.
Jul 24, 2006Jul 24 2006
     Re: FoxConn
27.
Jul 24, 2006Jul 24 2006
     Re: FoxConn
29.
Jul 24, 2006Jul 24 2006
     Re: FoxConn
30.
Jul 24, 2006Jul 24 2006
      Re: FoxConn
31.
Jul 24, 2006Jul 24 2006
      Re: FoxConn
32.
Jul 24, 2006Jul 24 2006
      Re: FoxConn
34.
Jul 24, 2006Jul 24 2006
       Re: FoxConn
35.
Jul 24, 2006Jul 24 2006
     Re: FoxConn
39.
Jul 24, 2006Jul 24 2006
     Re: FoxConn
40.
Jul 24, 2006Jul 24 2006
      Re: FoxConn
60.
Jul 24, 2006Jul 24 2006
     Re: FoxConn
61.
Jul 25, 2006Jul 25 2006
      Re: FoxConn
22.
Jul 24, 2006Jul 24 2006
    Re: FoxConn
5.
Jul 24, 2006Jul 24 2006
6.
Jul 24, 2006Jul 24 2006
8.
Jul 24, 2006Jul 24 2006
14.
Jul 24, 2006Jul 24 2006
11.
Jul 24, 2006Jul 24 2006
12.
Jul 24, 2006Jul 24 2006
15.
Jul 24, 2006Jul 24 2006
19.
Jul 24, 2006Jul 24 2006
20.
Jul 24, 2006Jul 24 2006
25.
Jul 24, 2006Jul 24 2006
26.
Jul 24, 2006Jul 24 2006
28.
Jul 24, 2006Jul 24 2006
33.
Jul 24, 2006Jul 24 2006
36.
Jul 24, 2006Jul 24 2006
37.
Jul 24, 2006Jul 24 2006
41.
Jul 24, 2006Jul 24 2006
38.
Jul 24, 2006Jul 24 2006
42.
Jul 24, 2006Jul 24 2006
44.
Jul 24, 2006Jul 24 2006
48.
Jul 24, 2006Jul 24 2006
 55.
Jul 24, 2006Jul 24 2006
   Re: What this means.
43.
Jul 24, 2006Jul 24 2006
45.
Jul 24, 2006Jul 24 2006
50.
Jul 24, 2006Jul 24 2006
53.
Jul 24, 2006Jul 24 2006
46.
Jul 24, 2006Jul 24 2006
49.
Jul 24, 2006Jul 24 2006
47.
Jul 24, 2006Jul 24 2006
54.
Jul 24, 2006Jul 24 2006
57.
Jul 24, 2006Jul 24 2006
58.
Jul 24, 2006Jul 24 2006
59.
Jul 24, 2006Jul 24 2006