Tweet
Should Apple buy AMD with its war chest?
If you were a shareholder, would you prefer a dividend or this?
-
In Soviet Russia, Fake borises YOU. -
Dividend. No point in buying AMD."The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. " -
A dividend. Please keep away from AMD.
No, I did not steal that from somebody on Something Awful.Comment
-
I was thinking that Apple being crazy about margins, AMD sounds like a good deal.In Soviet Russia, Fake borises YOU.Comment
-
I would think Nvidia would be a better purchase?
JMJon Miller-
I AM.CANADIAN
GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.Comment
-
But why?Originally posted by Oncle Boris View Post
They'd buy AMD only to kill off the entire market that buys their products?
Their CPUs aren't very good, and their GPUs merely competitive. They come with a lot of debt (IIRC), chronically poor management, and no real benefits for Apple.
If Apple wants the latest & greatest x86 CPUs, they need Intel and its process expertise. Buying AMD just means they may get slightly cheaper, more power hungry chips. As it stands now, Apple can play Intel & AMD off eachother for business if either one gets a better product.
It just makes no business sense for Apple to buy AMD."The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "Comment
-
Actually, here's a list of the benefits I thought about:
1) Using AMD's expertise to design ARM cores
2) Pushing harder for GPU computing, integrate into OS X and iOS at core level
3) AMD's historical issue had always been its inability to guarantee supply to big makers (in the days of the Athlon, it meant that AMD never passed 20% market share despite higher demand for its CPUs). With Apple as a guaranteed customer... I could see a viable fabbed AMD again.
Risky indeed, but why not?In Soviet Russia, Fake borises YOU.Comment
-
This. Buying AMD really helps nobody in the end.Originally posted by Asher View PostNo, I did not steal that from somebody on Something Awful.Comment
-
So I've been DanSed by Asher.
AMD is heading towards bankruptcy... Who wants to deal with a monopoly?
AMD is behind in process technology because it lacks the funds. Apple has the funds, and the ability to integrate vertically.In Soviet Russia, Fake borises YOU.Comment
-
AMD lacks processor technology because it lacks the funds to hire good people. The reason Intel stays ahead is because of the people who work there. Apple could never hope to get the kind of quality people Intel has working for AMD.
The only time AMD was ahead was because they hired a bunch of people who quit from a small processor company Intel bought (the name is escaping me at the moment). That's when they came out with AMD64 and a few other cool things. Since then, intel's caught up and surpassed them.
Also, it makes no sense to try to use AMD's expertise to make ARM cores...the ARM market is already pretty saturated as far as I can tell with Motorola and Texas Instruments and a few other companies already producing tons of new chips every year.If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
){ :|:& };:Comment
-
x-hereticorp'd
If it were anyone other than Apple or Intel, you might have a point.
Apple now has a proven record of "arranging" things behind the scenes to maximize profits at the expense of competition.No, I did not steal that from somebody on Something Awful.Comment
-
AMD has no expertise in ARM cores.Originally posted by Oncle Boris View Post
Don't need to buy AMD for this, since Apple's GPU computing is implemented via OpenCL which is GPU-agnostic.2) Pushing harder for GPU computing, integrate into OS X and iOS at core level
This isn't even close to true. It takes 10+ years of concurrent research to get to things like Intel's 3D tri-gate transistors. Apple would need to fund AMD to an obscene amount for many years to get up to parity with Intel.AMD is behind in process technology because it lacks the funds. Apple has the funds, and the ability to integrate vertically."The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "Comment
-
DEC/AlphaOriginally posted by Hauldren Collider View Post
It was a perfect storm of competent engineers at AMD and a bad strategic (marketing-driven) move by Intel (Netburst)."The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "Comment
-
Not to mention Intel deciding to go with Itanium for the first part of the 64 bit generation.If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
){ :|:& };:Comment
-
Is ARM and x86 expertise completely hermetic?Originally posted by Asher View Post
Don't need to buy AMD for this, since Apple's GPU computing is implemented via OpenCL which is GPU-agnostic.
Couldn't they increase the performance by implementing it in an arcane/proprietary manner?
Similarly, I was thinking that they could implement OS X specific instruction sets in CPUs...
This isn't even close to true. It takes 10+ years of concurrent research to get to things like Intel's 3D tri-gate transistors. Apple would need to fund AMD to an obscene amount for many years to get up to parity with Intel.
Yes. They happen to have $100b... I have a hard time believing that transistors are not a good investment for the future. Or have we reached the point where Intel is a natural monopoly (possible, I don't know)?In Soviet Russia, Fake borises YOU.Comment
Comment